0

This is a preliminary version and comments on any aspect of thepaper are most welcome. Some fonts may be missing. Please

contact us (k.borjars@man.ac.uk) before you cite this paper.

Origins and development of the Pennsylvania German ‘for…to’ construction

Kersti Börjars & Kate BurridgeUniversity of Manchester La Trobe University

Abstract

This paper examines the development of infinitival complementation in the variety of

Pennsylvania German (PG) spoken in Waterloo County, Canada (WCPG). In particular, it

focuses on the fer…zu ‘for…to’ construction which has developed from marking an adjunct

of purpose to being a general infinitival marker. A parallel change has led to the almost

complete loss of zu amongst younger speakers. We consider data from other varieties of

PG, the few historical sources of WCPG that exist and our own recordings of WCPG from

the last ten years. We put this data in the context of other Germanic varieties and conclude

that contrary to a view held by other researchers, this development is not due to influence

from English. We consider the consequences these changes have had for the clause structure

of WCPG and how these may be accounted for within syntactic theory.*

1. Introduction

In this paper, we will describe the development and distribution of the non-finite fer…zu

construction in Pennsylvania German (PG), in particular in the variety spoken in Waterloo

County, Canada (WCPG).1 The construction was originally found only in purposive

constructions, but has rapidly spread to complement positions. In section 2, we consider

briefly purposive clauses in earlier forms of PG as described in the literature and compare

with purposive clauses in other varieties of Germanic. The main purpose of this paper is to

describe the development of fer…zu from purposive marker to general non-finiteness

marker. This is a change which has taken place in a number of varieties of Germanic and

in section 3, we provide an overview of such varieties in order to place the WCPG changes

1

in a Germanic context. We include information about other varieties of PG and

descriptions of earlier stages of PG.

In section 4, we report on our own study of the construction in WCPG. This section

is based on recordings which we have made over the last ten years or so. The spread of

fer…zu clauses in PG from adjunct to subject and complement functions has taken place

at the same time as a related and very pervasive change in the language, namely the loss of

the infinitival marker zu. It is therefore more correct to refer to the construction type as the

fer(...zu) construction. Examples to illustrate this are given throughout and the

environments in which zu is still used are sketched in section 4.4, where the semantic

implications of the different forms are also discussed.

Explanations for the type of change that has taken place in PG have been proposed

in the literature and these are discussed in section 5. Here we also discuss proposed

explanations for similar changes in other languages. We evaluate these proposals in the

light of the PG data.

The purpose of this paper is not to provide a detailed analysis of non-finite clauses

in (WC)PG, but in section 5, we discuss the structural properties of fer in contemporary

WCPG. We suggest different ways of capturing these properties and of linking them to

the functional change discussed in section 4. We also consider some consequences which

the distribution and development of the fer(...zu) construction have for syntactic theory

and theories of grammatical change.

2. Purposive for…to infinitivals in varieties of Germanic.

It is not uncommon in Germanic languages for adverbial clauses expressing purpose to be

marked by the preposition for/fer/für in combination with an infinitival marker. In English,

a purposive for...to exists alongside the in order to construction as in the example in (1)

(contrary to what Huffines (1990:103) claims in her discussion of the PG construction:

“‘for to’ plus infinitive is an obsolete English construction to express purpose”; see the

discussion of different types of purpose clauses in English in Quirk et al (1985:48)). As

2

the examples in (2) show, standard English only allows the for...to purposive when there is

an overt subject.2 It is also possible to use for with in order to if a subject is present, as in

(3).

(1) a. Oscar gave Sarah a banana for her to eat when she got hungry.

b. For him to win, he needs to play at his best.

(2) a. *For to win, he needs to play at his best.

b. In order to win, he needs to play at his best.

(3) a. Oscar gave Sarah a banana in order for her to eat when she got hungry.

b. In order for him to win, he needs to play at his best.

A for...to purposive is also found in standard varieties of the Scandinavian

languages; some examples from Swedish are provided in (4). Here the preposition and the

infinitival marker appear to form a unit (it is described as ‘lexicalised’ by Teleman et al

1999) and only when a subject is lacking does the verb occur in a non-finite form (4c).

Interestingly, Icelandic does not have this construction, but forms the purposive with til

( ess) a or svo a 3

(4) a. Sara gav Oscar en banan för att han inte skulle bli hungrig.

Sara gave Oscar a banana for to he not should(fin) become hungry4

‘Sara gave Oscar a banana in order to make sure he wouldn’t be hungry.’

b. För att han skall kunna vinna,måstehan spela på topp.

for to he shall(fin) can win must he play on top

‘In order for him to win, he must play at his best.’

3

c. Han åt banan för att kunna spela på topp.

he ate banana for to can(inf) play on top

‘He ate bananas in order to be able to play at his best.’

d. *Förhonom att kunna vinna,måstehan spela på topp.

for him to can(inf) win must he play on top

In standard German, the preposition um is used in the purposive construction, as in (5)

(similarly, standard Dutch has om...te and Frisian om...ta).

(5) a. Ich bin geblieben um ihm zu helfen.

I am remained purp him to help.

‘I stayed in order to help him.’

b. Ich arbeite um zu leben.

I work purp to live

‘I work in order to live.’

There are, however, non-standard varieties of German which have a für...zu purposive; an

example from the dialect of the Rhein-Palatinate (Pfälzisch) is provided in (6) (Henn

1980:53).5 A für...zu purposive construction is also reported for other continental dialects,

Frankish (cf. Lockwood 1968:154) and Swiss German (cf. Reed 1948:244). 6 Both

Lockwood (1968) and Ebert (1978:31) trace this back to the French pour / pour a

infinitival construction. Whether or not the construction is ultimately French or whether it

was independently motivated in these dialects is not clear, but as we have shown here, a

for...to construction occurs in Germanic languages where French influence would not be a

plausible explanation.

4

(6)

he went there for in-to-buy

‘He went there in order to do the shopping.’

Another Germanic languages which has a purposive construction with for is

Luxembourgish.7 There is a finite construction with fir...datt and a non-finite construction

with fir...ze.8 (Bruch 1973:102-104; Christophory 1974:93), the latter is exemplified in

(7).

(7) a. Si kommen fir eis rosen ze maen,net fir eisze hëllefen.

they come for us angry to make not for us to help

‘They come to make us angry, not to help us.’ Christophory (1974:93)

b. Fir ze stierwe brauch een nët vill, awer fir ze liewen.

for to die need one not much but for to live

‘One doesn’t need much to die, but to live one does.’ LW I9

As we shall see in section 3, the similarities between the Luxembourgish and Pennsylvania

German fer...zu / fir... ze constructions extend beyond the purposive.

In Swiss German, für is also used in purposives. 10 The construction is slightly

different from the ones we have considered so far in that zu appears as zum, the form

involving an incorporated definite article. This may lead one to assume that the infinitive is

actually a nominal form here. Still, as Henk van Riemsdijk has pointed out to us, it is verb-

like in that its complement occurs on its left and without preposition. The examples

provided by Weber (1964:32) indicate that für is often deleted as in (8b). Indeed (8a) is

the only example Weber gives with für.

5

(8) a. I hä z wenig Gält ghaa für zum chöne boue. Swiss German

I have too little money had for to.the can build

‘I had too little money to be able to build (a house for myself).’

b. Er macht das nur zum äim ëërgere.

he does that only to.the one irritate

‘He only does that to irritate people.’ (Weber 1946:302)

Turning now to dialects of Pennsylvania German spoken in the US (USPG), we

find that as far back as there is a written record, a purposive fer...zu construction can be

found.11 The oldest texts we have had at our disposal are from an anthology of PG texts

published in 1905, but compiled by 1875 (Horne 1905).12 The book contains a very brief

section entitled ‘Pennsylvania German Grammar’ (1905:221–225), but clause structure is

not discussed. The prose texts included in the book do, however, give ample examples of

the fer…zu construction in purpose clauses. The status of the texts in Horne (1905

[1875]) is not clear; some texts, for instance, appear to be translations and in some cases

we find expressions which are more likely to have belonged in Standard German than in

the dialect spoken at the time. However, since neither the Standard German nor the

English sentences corresponding to these examples would have contained a for...to

construction, we can assume that the use of fer...zu in purposives must go back at least to

the previous century. An example from Horne is provided in (9).13

(9) Un grawd so leit hut’s g’num for de Englisha

and exactly such people has-it taken for the English

zu led’ra un’r d’umshtenda, we se wawra.

to beat under the.circumstances as they were

‘And it took exactly this kind of people to beat the English in the

circumstances as they were.’ (Horne 1905:136)

6

It should be pointed out here though that in the same text, there are also examples of

um…zu purpose clauses (10), so that the two construction types may have existed side by

side at this stage.

(10) M’r broucht yuscht on de olt sich’l un de sens

weneeded only on the old sickle and the scythe

zu denka, un de moshina mit f’rgleicha,

to think and the machines with compare

um sich zu f’rwun’ra.

purp refl to amaze.inf

‘We need only think of the old sickle and scythe and compare them with the

machines to be amazed.’ (Horne 1905:136)

The various pedagogical grammar books of USPG which exist; for example, Frey (1981

(originally 1942)), Buffington and Barba (1965), and Haag (1982) provide little

information on complex clauses, but they do all describe a fer...zu adverbial (purposive)

clause. They give examples like those in (11). These authors also point out that zu may be

omitted from these purposive constructions, an issue to which we will return in section 4.

Buffington & Barba exemplify with (1b).

(11) a. Mer muss gude Aage hawwe fersell zu lese.

one must good eyes have for that to read

‘You have to have good eyes to read that.’ (Buffington and Barba 1965:80)

b. Ich bin do,fer’s schere.

I am here for.it shear

‘I’m here to shear it.’ (Buffington and Barba 1965:79)

7

Our own recordings of modern WCPG provide ample examples of the fer(...zu)

construction used as an adjunct of purpose, the loss of zu is striking here, a point to which

we return in section 4.3. Some examples are provided in (12).

(12) a. Een owed hot en arme mann en schupkarrich g’numme

one evening has a poor man a wheel-barrow taken

fer zu eme nochbar blatz geh ferriewe holle.

for to a neighbour place go for turnips fetch

‘One evening a poor man took a wheel barrow to go to a neighbouring farm to

fetch turnips.’14

b. Ich nemm die schuh zum schumacher ferg’fixt waere.

I take the shoes to.the cobbler fer mended be

‘I take the shoes to the cobbler (in order for them) to be mended.’

In this section, we have seen that non-finite purposive clauses with for...to are then not

uncommon in varieties of Germanic. They occur both in standardise varieties and non-

written dialects.

3. Non-purposive for…to infinitivals in varieties of Germanic

3.1 Varieties of English and their analyses

It is a well-known fact that in English, there is a for...to construction in complement and

subject clauses. In standard varieties, for is only possible when there is a subject in the

infinitival clause and then for is obligatory (except when the clause is the complement of

verbs like expect or believe, which are assumed to give rise to so-called Subject-to-Object

Raising (SOR), S-bar deletion or Exceptional Case Marking).15 In fact such data led to the

postulation of the *[for-to] filter in Chomsky and Lasnik (1977). Later the obligatory

8

occurrence of for with an overt subject in infinitival clauses led to the assumption that for

assigns Case to the following noun phrase.16 In the “subjectless” clauses, a zero element

PRO fills the subject position and this element is assumed to lack Case, so that it need not,

indeed cannot, be assigned Case and hence it occurs without for in these constructions.17

There are, however, non-standard varieties of English which have a for…to

construction also in subjectless constructions, possibly most well-known one being Ozark,

a variety spoken in the Ozark region of northwestern Arkansas and southern Missouri.

Ozark was introduced into the debate by Chomsky & Lasnik (1977) and taken up in

Chomsky (1981:281, 300) and Koster & May (1982:121). Chomsky & Lasnik

(1977:455) assume that the *[for-to] filter is a dialect-specific and does not apply to

Ozark. In the analyses of Chomsky (1981) and Koster & May (1982) for is assumed to

assign Case only optionally in Ozark; when for is combined with a subjectless clause it

does not assign case, when it is followed by a subject NP, it does. Little information about

the distribution of for in Ozark is provided; the impression given is that for has the same

distribution in Ozark as it does in standard English when the infinitival clause has a

subject but that it can also occur wherever standard English has a subjectless to-

infinitive.18

Of more interest to the topic of this paper are two varieties of English for which this

construction type has been more well-described; Ottawa Valley English (OVE, Carroll

1983) and Belfast English (BE, Henry 1992, 1995). Both varieties are of interest because

they contain constructions which are similar to, yet different from, the ones we discuss

here and because analyses are suggested by Carroll and Henry to which the PG data can

be compared (we will return to this in section 5.4).

OVE is of special interest since it is spoken geographically relatively close to

WCPG. Carroll (1983:416, fn 1) points out that OVE is not actually the general dialect of

the Ottawa Valley area, but an Irish-based dialect spoken in certain parts of rural areas and

small towns within the region. According to the Linguistic Survey of the Ottawa Valley, a

project at Carleton University, Ottawa, the situation is more complex than this: “Early

9

research established that, outside of the city of Ottawa itself, the legendary ‘Ottawa Valley

accent’ [...] consisted of at least nine different varieties of English; several with clear roots

in Ireland, other with equally clear roots in Scotland.”19 We should point out at this stage,

that we do not believe influence from any variety of English to be an important factor in

the development of the fer(...zu) construction in WCPG. In fact, in section 5.2 we will

argue explicitly against this. It is interesting to note here that the Linguistic Survey of the

Ottawa Valley suggests that some OVE varieties may in fact have undergone early

influence from varieties of German, though there is no information about specific

properties that may have arisen from this influence and hence there is no suggestion that

there is a connection between the fer...zu of these varieties of German and the OVE

for...to.20

Unlike Ozark, OVE does not permit for to occur in obligatory control clauses (13a),

in constructions with believe verbs (Subject-to-Object Raising or Exceptional Case

Marking), (13b), or with seem verbs (Subject-to-Subject Raising), (13c). In all these cases,

the standard English construction without for is grammatical also in OVE.

(13) a. *John tried for to learn the poem. Ottawa Valley English

b. *We all believe for Fifi to be having a good time.

c. *Fifi seems for to be having a good time. (Carroll 1983:419&421)

Verbs and adjectives that allow either a control construction or a non-finite clause

with an overt subject do, on the other hand permit for. In this class of constructions, if

there is no overt NP, for is optional, as in (14). For all adjectives and most verbs in the

class, if there is an NP present, for must also occur, as in (15), but with certain verbs, for

instance with want, prefer and like, for is optional also when there is an overt NP, as (16)

shows.21

10

(14) a. We want (for) to leave. Ottawa Valley English

b. It is nice (for) to do that. (Carroll 1983:422)

(15) a. We are happy *(for) Mary to be there. Ottawa Valley English

b. We all prayed *(for) Fifi to have a good time. (Carroll 1983:423)

(16) a. We want (for) Dodo to leave. Ottawa Valley English

b. We prefer (for) Fifi to have a good time. (Carroll 1983:422)

Carroll shows that in many cases where for is followed by a subjectless infinitival

clause, there is an alternative construction in which it can be followed by an ordinary NP; I

am here for the fish vs I am here for to fish. She then suggests that this is because in

these environments for really is a preposition which takes an NP argument and hence she

analyses for followed by a subjectless infinitive as a P+NP combination. When for is

followed by an infinitival clause containing an overt NP, on the other hand, it is assumed

to be a complementiser.22 The complementiser for is a governor and a Case assigner, just

like it is in the analyses of standard English by Chomsky (1981) and Koster & May

(1983) and hence it cannot occur with PRO. Sentences such as those in (13) are then

ruled out because these verbs do not subcategorise for a PP (compare (13a) with *Dodo

tried for Peake Freans (1983:426)). A clausal construction with the complementiser for is

ruled out in (13) since PRO would then be governed. The optionality of for in (14) and

(16) is not, as far as we can tell, explicitly accounted for.

Even though a number of properties which distinguish some of the varieties of OVE

from standard English are said to go back to Irish dialects, the for...to construction

reported for Belfast English (Henry 1992, 1995) is radically different from the OVE

construction we have just considered. There are in fact two types of for...to dialects

spoken in Ireland, in one, for...to is restricted to purposive clauses. This variety is not

discussed further by Henry and it is also of limited interest to us. In the more radical, less

11

frequent, Irish dialect, subjectless for...to clauses can occur with want type verbs (17a), but

also in obligatory control constructions (17b), Subject-to-Subject Raising constructions

(17c) as well as in Subject-to-Object Raising constructions (17d).

(17) a. I want for to meet them. BE

b. I persuaded John for to go home.

c. John seems for to be better.

d. I believe them for to have done it. (Henry 1992:279, 283, 285)

In for...to constructions with an overt subject, for precedes the overt NP in most

constructions (18a, b), but with ECM constructions and with want type verbs, the overt NP

precedes for (17d) and (18c), except where something else, like an adverbial, appears

immediately following the matrix verb (18d).23

(18) a. For him to pay the mortgage would be just as expensive. BE

b. Mary was keen for them to be there.

c. I wanted Jimmy for to come with me.

d. I want very much for him to get accepted. (Henry 1992:284)

The position of the negation in BE for...to constructions is crucial to Henry’s

analysis. Generally, not can only follow for...to as in (19a, b). However, in the cases where

for can precede a subject (18a, b), the negation may precede to as shown by (19c, d).

(19) a. I would prefer them for to not go. BE

b. For to not go would be foolish.

c. For John not to go would be foolish.

d. For John to not go would be foolish. (Henry 1992: 285-286)

12

Based on complementary distribution with other complementisers, Henry argues

that for in these constructions is itself generated in C and that hence for to is not just a

lexical variant of to.24 Given this and the assumption that a complementiser like for can

govern and assign Case to a following subject (as in (18a, b, d)), the question then arises

as to how for...to can occur with PRO subjects as in (17) and also why an overt subject

can precede for as in (17d) and (18c). If one applied the solution offered by Chomsky

(1981) and Koster & May (1982), that for is an optional governor and only governs the

subject position when this is filled by an overt NP, then the negation placement would

remain a puzzle. Under this assumption, the assertive versions of (19b) and (19c/d) would

be identical in structure For PRO/John to go would be foolish and there would be no

obvious explanation for why the negative cannot immediately follow the subject when this

is PRO. Henry (1992, 1995) assumes that in the cases where there is no overt subject or

where for occurs to the right of an overt subject, for has moved down into I, where it

cliticises to to. This then also explains why the negation cannot occur between the two

elements in these cases, but has to follow, as in (19a, b). Cliticisation of for may only take

place when there is nothing in the subject position which requires for in C to assign it

Case, hence, where there is an overt NP, for remains in C, as in (18 a, b, d). In (18c), it is

assumed that want can function as an Exceptional Case Marker into the lower clause and

hence for is free to move from C.

To sum up, we can say then that in OVE, if there is an overt NP, for is obligatory

except with a small number of verbs, the want-type, which could also have occurred with a

PRO subject. If the matrix verb obligatorily takes subjectless infinitivals, then for is not

permitted. With the want type verbs, for is optional also when there is no overt subject. In

most of the constructions then, for and PRO occur in complementary distribution and an

analysis in which for is a Case assigner is the most plausible option within a

transformational approach. In the radical variety of BE, on the other hand, there appear to

be no to-infinitivals where for is excluded, regardless of whether or not the subject is

present. Henry (1992, 1995) still assumes that for is in nature a Case assigner, but one

13

which often lowers to cliticise to to and therefore does not assign its Case. The motivation

for this lowering is not explicitly accounted for.

3.2 Luxemburgish

We are not aware of any detailed description of fir…ze in Luxemburgish (L), but it is clear

that the construction has expanded beyond the purposive. Bruch (1973:103) states that

infinitival fir…ze clauses ‘do not only substitute for the infinitive which would be

constructed with um zu in German, but also for the nominalised infinitive with zum (a) and

the infinitive which uses only zu (b).’ The examples given under (a) are all purposive in

nature, similar to the examples provided in (7) in section 2, but the sentences Bruch uses to

illustrate the (b) type, found here in (20), show some of the extent of the spread of fir…ze.

(20) a. Ech si frou fir ze raschten. L

I am happy for to rest

‘I am happy to take a rest.’

b. Gëf mer eppes fir z’iessen!

give me something for to-eat

‘Give me something to eat.’

c. En huet probéiert fir op de Bam ze klammen.

he has tried for on the tree to climb

‘He tried to climb the tree.’

14

d. Hie versteet et fir engem de Mond wässereg

he understands it for somone.dat the mouth watery

ze maachen.

to make

‘He knows how to make your mouth water.’

e. En huet mech gefrot fir em eng Hand unzeleën.

he has me asked for him a hand put (up)

‘He asked me to lend him a hand.’ (Bruch 1973:103)

f. Et schéngt alles drop ze weisen, wéi wann si

it seemed everything on it to indicate as if they

an deem rouegen, déiwe Gallesche bësch

in the quiet deep Gallic forest

prett wire fir un den dësch ze goën.

readywere for at the table to go

‘Everything seemed to indicate that in the deep quiet Gallic forest they were

ready to sit down for their dinner.’ (Goscinny & Uderzo 1990:1)25

As we can see from these examples, fir…ze clauses can function as the complement

of an adjective (20a) and (20f) or a noun (20b) or as the complement of verbs

(20c)–(20e). The example in (20c) and (20d) are subject control constructions and (20e)

an object control construction.

Examples in which the fir…ze clause functions as extraposed subject can also be

found, as (21) shows.

15

(21) ‘t as nët gutt fir eppes te soën. L

it is not good for something to say

‘It is not good to say something.’ (adapted from Bruch 1973:104)

In some of these constructions, fir is optional and if fir is omitted, then ze may also

be omitted, but fir can never occur without ze. Bruch (1973) discusses this optionality

only with respect to constructions of the type illustrated by (21), which should be

compared with (22).

(22) a. ‘t as nët gutt eppes te soën. L

it is not good something to say (adapted from Bruch 1973:104)

b. ‘t as nët gutt eppes soën. L

it is not good something say (Bruch 1973:104)

It is, however, clear that fir can be deleted also in other environments, as (23) shows, but

the exact conditions for this have, to our knowledge, not been described.

(23) Gëf mer eppes z’iessen. L

give me something to.eat

‘Give me something to eat.’ (Bruch 1973:104)

Even though the details of the distribution of fir…ze clauses are not known, it is

clear that the clause type has spread from purposive clauses to subject and to different

types of complement functions. In at least some environments, fir can be omitted and ze

can also be omitted, but only in cases where fer has been deleted too.

16

3.3 Infinitival Clauses in Descriptions of US Pennsylvania German

It is not entirely clear when the fer(...zu) construction started to spread to complement

positions in Pennsylvania German. We have found examples of the extended use in the

texts in Horne (1905 [1875]), this includes use of fer without zu as in (24b) and (24c).

(24) a. Der Bill war zu ehrlich

the Bill was too honest

fer sei land fon die Insching zu schtaela

for his land from the Indian to steal

so hat er es widder fon ihnen gekauft.

so had he it again from them bought

‘Bill was too honest to steal his land from the Indians and so he bought it

back from them.’ (Horne 1905:201)

b. Se wore ols so shlim fer danse.

they were always so eager for dance

‘They were always so eager to dance.’ (Horne 1905:130)

c. Erhat die Inschingall eiglauda ferkumma.

he has the Indians all invited for come

‘He invited all the Indians to come.’ (Horne 1905:201)

As we pointed out before, the status of the texts in Horne (1905 [1875]) is unclear.

However, since these construction types could not be ascribed to influence either from

Standard German or English, we can assume that in the PG spoken at this time, the use of

the fer…zu construction had already spread from purposive constructions. We will return

to the matter of influence from English in section 5.2, where we will take issue with the

claim of Reed (1948), Costello (1978) and van Ness (1994: 436) that the development of

17

the fer (...zu) construction is an example of influence from English. Keeping in mind that

the texts in Horne (1905) were compiled before 1875, we can conclude from these

examples that the expansion of fer(…zu) was already underway in the 1800s.

As mentioned in section 2, grammars like Frey (1981 [1942]), Buffington and

Barba (1965) and Haag (1982) mention the fer(...zu) construction in purpose clauses, but

do not discuss any extended use. Nouns and adjectives are described as taking the

infinitive with zu as their complements, as are verbs, with the exception of a set of verbs

(including the modals) which take the infinitive without zu. Examples such as (25) are

provided, these also include examples where the clause serves as extraposed subject (25c)

(though this is referred to as an infinitive modifying an adjective).

(25) a. Ich hab drei hunnert Daaler Tax zu bzaahle.

I have three hundred dollar tax to pay

‘I have three hundred dollars tax to pay.’ (Buffington and Barba 1965:78)

b. Des iss hatt zu lese.

this is hard to read

‘This is hard to read.’ (Buffington and Barba 1965:79)

c. Es iss net schee, die Veggel zu schrecke.

it is not nice the birds to frighten

‘It is not nice to frighten the birds.’ (Haag 1982:178)

When discussing complementation, Buffington and Barba (1965) do not mention

the fer (…zu) construction and fer is not included in the list of subordinating conjunctions

(1965:91). However, the texts used in Buffington and Barba do contain examples like (26)

that suggest fer(...zu) was spreading beyond adverbial clauses to other clause types also in

the varieties that they describe.

18

(26) Erwaar wiescht genunk feren noch viel wieschdererNaam

he was ugly enough for an even more uglier name

zu hawwe.

to have

‘He was ugly enough to have even a much uglier name.’

(Buffington and Barba 1965:79)

Costello (1978), assuming that Buffington and Barba (1965) provide an accurate

description of what he refers to as Standardized Pennsylvania German (StdPG) of that

time and ignoring examples like (26) concludes that StdPG does not have a

complementiser fer.26 He contrasts this with data which he provides from what he refers to

as Southeastern Pennsylvania German (SPG), i.e. as spoken in southeastern

Pennsylvania. He provides the examples in (27) of extraposed subject clauses and that in

(28) of complements of verbs.

(27) a. Es iss en Wunner,ferClarence selli Biecher zu lese. SPG

it is a wonder for Clarence these books to read

‘It is unusual for Clarence to read these books.’

b. Eswaar schee,ferihr Brief zu griege.

It was nice for their letter to receive

‘It was nice to receive their letter.’ (Costello 1978:36)

(28) Ich gleiche ferBalle zu schpiele. SPG

I like for ball to play

‘I like to play ball.’ (Costello 1978:39)

19

In all fer...zu clauses where there is no subject — here (27b) and (28) — Costello

indicates that zu can be deleted. He contrasts (27a) and (27b) with finite clauses

introduced by as in StdPG and (28) with a StdPG zu clause. His argument is that the

fer(...zu) construction in SPG is due to influence from English, a claim which we will

dispute in section 5.2. Given the existence of examples like (26), the contrast between

StdPG and SPG is unlikely to have been as stark as Costello (1978) puts it.

Louden (1988, 1997) provides a thorough discussion of the distribution of the

fer(...zu) and states that “‘fer’ is generalized in all contexts where overt complementizers

are required” (1988: 209). Van Ness’s sketch of general PG grammar describes fer as a

general complementiser (1994:436). Both Louden and van Ness discuss possible parallels

with English constructions, to which we will return in section 5.2. Both authors also

maintain that in USPG, it is only older speakers who show remnants of the earlier

variation between fer...zu and zu.

Huffines (1990) carried out a study of the use of the fer(...zu) construction in

different contexts by different sub-groups of PG speakers in Pennsylvania. According to

her results, there is still some use of fer…zu and zu, but only amongst the non-sectarian

groups (this is what is often referred to as the non-plain people, see further in section 4.1),

which include some non-native speakers of PG.

We can conclude then that amongst the sectarian, or plain, USPG speakers, zu is

virtually lost. The loss of zu, had started as early as in the 19th century as the examples in

(24) from Horne (1905 [1875]) showed, and the possibility of leaving zu out is mentioned

in many of the later grammars, even though these deal exclusively with the purposive

(Buffington & Barba 1965:79, Frey 1981:82 and Haag 1982:179).

4 Non-purposive for-to infinitivals in Waterloo County Pennsylvania German

4.1 The community

After a brief discussion of some previous sources on Canadian PG in section 4.2, we turn

to the major focus of this paper, an account of the recordings which we have done over the

20

last ten years with a community of Mennonites in Waterloo County, Canada. Before this,

we give some background to the community and their language.

A detailed discussion of the historical background of the Waterloo County

Mennonites can be found in Fretz (1989), here we will simplify and summarise somewhat.

The Mennonites, like many other Anabaptist groups, were persecuted in Europe and fled

to America. They settled mainly in Pennsylvania, where they were offered religious

freedom and land. Some of this migration took place in the late 17th century, but the bulk

of it occurred in the 18th century. The migration north to Canada took place in the

beginning of the 19th century. Events relating to the American War of Independence were

the prime cause for the migration and it is generally recognised that two factors were

particularly important. Firstly, the Mennonites had sympathy for the British since they felt

that it was they who had offered them freedom from persecution in their new country.

Secondly, the Mennonites are strict pacifists and when war eventually broke out between

the colonies and the British, this led to serious difficulties. Canada then offered another

chance to live without persecution under British rule on good farm land and large numbers

of Mennonites moved north. It should be said also that many stayed behind in

Pennsylvania and there is a lot of contact between the two groups today.

Since the 1870s, the Mennonites have been experiencing continued factionalism and

the result is now a complex pattern of different sub-groups. The best way to view the

situation is probably in terms of a continuum of conservatism — from the most

conservative groups (for example, the Old Orders and The David Martins) through to the

so-called “Progressive” Mennonites, who are indistinguishable from mainstream

Canadians. The community with which we work consist of what we may refer to as “Plain

Mennonites”, or in Huffines’ (1990) terms “sectarians”. The term we use is commonly

used and it refers to the fact that these groups still adhere to rigid codes of clothing and

thereby distinguish themselves from the modern Mennonites whose style of living and

church buildings fairly closely resembles other modern radically reformed Christian

communities. The group defined by the term Plain Mennonites is interesting to us because

21

it also defines a community which is reasonably homogenous linguistically. There are two

major groups of Plain Mennonites, the Old Orders (OO) and the Markham Mennonites

(MM).27 We have not been able to discern any structural linguistic differences between

these two groups, with the exception that young Markham Mennonites use slightly more

English words in their PG. The speakers themselves confirm this impression and say that

they cannot tell the difference between the two groups by their language.28 There are

differences in dress and the Markham Mennonites are more liberal for instance in that

they use (black) cars, whereas Old Orders travel by horse and buggy. A number of the

Markham Mennonites we have recorded grew up in Old Order families and have siblings

who remain Old Orders. This does not cause any social problems and there is normal

family contact in such cases. Old Orders and Markham children usually attend the same

Mennonite run schools and often church buildings are shared in that there is a week by

week rota, though on any particular occasion, the service will only be attended by members

of one group. The church services differ in that the sermon is in PG in the Old Order and

in English in the Markham services, this does lead to a difference in the status of the

language as argued in Burridge (In Press). Still, sociologically and linguistically, the Old

Orders and the Markham Mennonites remain closely bound.

All speakers we have recorded have grown up as monolinguals until the age of

about six, when they start school. Even though Plain Mennonites run their own schools,

the language of instruction is English, and for many children this will be the first time that

they are required to interact in English. Since the community does not have radio or

television, or indeed use the internet, young PG people’s contact with English is more

limited than for many young speakers of minority languages in English speaking

countries. All adult PG speakers are bilingual PG and English.

4.2 Early examples of WCPG

WCPG is not a written language and early examples of the language are therefore hard to

come by. The earliest reliable examples date from the 1930s in the form of poetry written

22

by the Old Order Mennonite Ben Sauder (Der Nachbar an de Schtroas, published 1955

by the Folklore Society). Admittedly poetry is not ideal for the study of syntactic change,

but in this case it is all we have.

In Sauder’s poetry, purpose is overwhelmingly expressed with fer...zu, as in (29a)

and the first purpose clause in (29b). Only occasionally is zu omitted in these adjunt

clauses — as in the second purpose clause in (29b).29

(29) a. Ich kan immer noch sene ferdie aerwet zu schaffe.

I can always still see for the work to do

‘I can still see to do work.’

b. Dass der Vodda het ihm Gelt vaschenkt,

that the Dad has him money given

Fier so en groosi Trip zu macha;

for so a big trip to make

Un mich nu griega far die Erwat schaffa.

and me now get for the work do

‘That his Dad gave him money to make such a big trip and then to hire me to

do the work.’ (Ben Sauder’s poetry)

In Sauder’s poetry, complement clauses modifying nouns and adjectives usually appear

with single zu. There is considerable variation in these poems, however, and many

examples show quite clearly that the original fer(...zu) purposive construction had already

spread to clauses of different kinds. The examples in (30) illustrate this.

(30) a. Fer Sauder zu haysa is doch gar ke Shand.

for Sauder to be-called is but absolutely noshame

‘To be called Sauder is no shame at all.’

23

b. Eswaer ke groosi Schand, fa alles zu mache,

is would-be nogreat shame for everything to make

yuscht bei Hand.

only by hand

‘It wouldn’t be any great shame to make everything by hand.’

c. Es iss gewiss ke groosi Schand fa zafridda sei im a kalda Land.

it is certainly nogreat shame for content be in a cold country

‘It’s certainly no great shame to be content in a cold country.’

(Ben Sauder’s poetry)

We have not been able to find a pattern in the use of fer...zu, fer and zu in this data. For

instance, in (30b) and (30c), the relevant clauses function as extraposed subjects, but still

one has fer...zu and one has fer. In fact, as the examples in (31) show, we find very similar

constructions showing the whole gamut of possible clause marking — fer...zu; single fer

and single zu.

(31) a. Es iss net dawaert, fier die Schteddla zu saachen.

is is not worth for the townfolk to say

‘It’s not worth telling those not on the land.’

b. Waerr es v’leicht dawaert, ferdes Ding browiera.

would-be it perhaps worth for the thing try

‘It’d perhaps be worth trying the thing.’

24

c. Es iss nimmi dawaert, Schulde zu mache.

it is never worth debts to make

‘It is never worth making debts.’ (Ben Sauder poems)

There are three other collections of Canadian PG dating from around the 1970s.

The first comprises a collection of PG sentences compiled by Alan Buehler, a former Old

Order Mennonite (unpublished manuscript). Presumably Buehler devised these sentences

himself. Buehler also published his autobiography in Pennsylvania German (1977). The

third collection comprises two short taped interviews of Old Order Mennonites (recorded

in 1969; Karch & Moelleken 1977).30

The collections from this time are interesting. Although there are clear signs of fer

clauses becoming the preferred construction, these texts still show considerable variation

between fer...zu, zu and fer clauses. The extract in (32), for example, illustrates both

fer...zu and single fer in purposive clauses.

(32) Noh huhd dah teacher ahls die Susanah Weber eerah notebooch

then has the teacher always the Susanah Weber her notebook

gahvisah fawah viesah vee shay see shriebd, oon noh

shown for show how lovelyshe writesand now

huhd see aw mie notebooch gahvisah, fawah mich tsoo shehmah.

has she also my notebook shown for me to shame

‘Then the teacher always showed Susanah Weber’s notebook to show how

lovely she writes, and then she also showed my notebook to shame me.’

(Buehler 1977:89)

Buehler’s autobiography also has several examples of zu and ø purpose clauses:

25

(33) a. Des vawah ah “SHAWDY” mahsheen, oon huhd ah rawd

this was a Shade machine and has a wheel

caht voo mah drayah huhd missah tsoo vehshah.

had which one turn has must to wash.

‘That was a Shade machine and (it) had a wheel which one had to turn in

order to wash.’ (Buehler 1977:93)

b. ... ehb ich bawahd oon nehgahl hahvah dairf dehs mahchah.

... if I boards and nails have may this make

‘... if I could have some boards and nails to make this.’ (Buehler 1977:109)

Buehler’s autobiography also shows that he used clauses with fer...zu, fer and zu in

subject position and a range of complement clauses. Some examples are provided in (34).

(34) a. Ahs is hied hahd fawah ahn ahldey drehsh mahsheen tsoo finah.

it is today hard for an old thresh machine to find

‘It is hard today to find an old threshing machine.’ (Buehler 1977:95)

b. Dehsvawah kshbahs fawah oof dee trolleys gay.

it was fun for on the trolley go

‘It was fun to go on the trolleys.’ (Buehler 1977:93)

c. See vawrah froh mich tsoo saynah.

they were happy me to see

‘They were happy to see me.’ (Buehler 1977:111)

26

d. See vawrah surprised fah mich saynah.

they were surprised for me see

‘They were surprised to see me.’ (Buehler 1977:115)

We can conclude then that in WCPG, as in USPG, fer as a complementiser had

started to spread from purposive to subject and complement clauses at this stage. It is not

unlikely that this spread had started before the Waterloo County Mennonites moved

north. The data also shows that even though fer could occur in a clause without zu, there

was a lot of variation and zu was in regular use certainly into the 1970s.

4.3 The distribution of fer(...zu) clauses in contemporary WCPG

Our corpus of WCPG comprises conversations, stories and elicited data from the late

1980s until the present time. What is striking is that it does not contain a single example

of a construction involving both fer and zu, neither in purposives nor in subject or

complement clauses. When pushed, language consultants will provide fer...zu sentences

like those reported above from the older literature, but they find them contrived — at best

old fashioned or extremely high style. In contemporary WCPG non-finite adverbial,

subject and complement clauses typically appear with single fer, though as we shall see,

older speakers still use zu on its own in certain non-finite environments. We will return to

this issue in section 4.4. We will start here by providing an overview of the environments

in which fer(...zu) clauses — or rather fer clauses — can occur. In what follows, unless

otherwise specified these examples are from naturally occurring data; elicited sentences are

always indicated.

Fer clauses are common in subject position and as extraposed subject, as in (35).

(35) a. Fer datt anner laafe waer sadde dumm.

for there towards walk would-be sort-of stupid

‘To walk there would be sort of stupid.’ (elicited)

27

b. Eswaer hatt uff ien feruns sene gee.

it was hard on him for us see go

‘It was hard on him to see us go.’

They also occur as the complement of a noun or an adjective, as in (36) and (37),

respectively. Examples like those in (36) can also occur with zu instead of fer in the

speech of some older speakers and we will return to the conditions under which this

happens in section 4.4.

(36) a. Ich hab fufzich kieh fermelge

I have fifty cows for milk

‘I have fifty cows to milk.’

b. Ich hab alsnoch zwee brief ferschreiwe

I have as still two letters for write

‘I still have two letters to write.’

(37) a. Des buch war interesting ferlese

this book was interesting to read

‘This book was interesting to read.’

b. Sie waar e bissel e hatte fraa ferlewwe mit.

she was a bit a hard woman for live with

‘She was a bit of a difficult woman to live with.’

28

c. Ich bin verschtaunt ferdich sene do.

I am astonished for you see here

‘I am astonished to see you here.’

Fer clauses can also occur as the complement of any type of verb that can take a

non-finite complement. Subject and object control verbs with fer clauses are provided in

(38) and (39), respectively.

(38) a. Ich hab versproche feriem helfe.

I have promised for him help

‘I promised to help him.’ (elicited)

b. No hot sie so hatt browiert feralles sauwer halde.

then has she so hard tried for everything clean keep

‘Then she tried so hard to keep everything clean.’

c. Ich hab g’denkt ferin schteddel gee.

I have thought for in town go

‘I thought of going into town.’

(39) a. Ich hab ien verschwetzt fergeh.

I have him persuaded for go

‘I persuaded him to go.’ (elicited)

b. Sie ecschpect dich fer kumme frie

she expects you for come early

‘She expects you to come early.’

29

Sentences of the type usually referred to as raising constructions also involve fer

clauses. In (40a), we have an example of Subject-to-Subject Raising clause and in (40b),

we find an example of Subject-to-Object Raising.

(40) a. Erscheint feren ehrliche man sei.

he seems for an honest man be

‘He seems to be an honest man.’ (elicited)

b. Ich hab ien als ghalde fere bissel arm sei.

I have him always held for a little stupid be

‘I’ve always considered him to be a little bit thick.’ (elicited)

It should be pointed out here that some older speakers would use zu rather than fer in

(40a) (see discussion in section 4.4).

The use of fer has spread to include those constructions where previously zu

alternated with the bare infinitive. The examples in (41) come from Buehler’s

autobiography (Buehler 1977). They show the verb brawiere ‘try’ with the full range —

bare infinitive, zu infintive and fer infinitive. Only examples (41a) and (41c) are

grammatical today. In section 4.4 we try to explain the different conditions that trigger

these two possible clause markings — ø and fer.

(41) a. Oof dee nehggschdah pages villich brahveerah mie

on the next pages will I try my

autobiographey gehvah.

autobiography give

‘On the following pages I will try to present my autobiography.’

(Buehler 1977:85)

30

b. .... ahgahbohd, voo see brahveerah tsoo hahldah

.... a commandment whichthey try to uphold

‘.... a commandment which they try to uphold’ (Buehler 1977:97)

c. Erhot brawiert feriwwerdie fens tschumbe.

he has tried for over the fence jump

‘He tried to jump over the fence.’ (Buehler’s collected sentences; nd)

Verbs of liking have typically taken a bare infinitive, less usually a zu infinitive (but

sometimes with different meanings; compare English I like reading versus I like to read).

Take for example, the verb gleiche ‘to like’.31 Although speakers still prefer zero marking

here, fer complement clauses are now possible. In Section 4.4 we return to this variation.

(42) a. Deedscht du gleiche feren teacher sei een daag?

would you like for a teacher be one day

‘Would you like to be a teacher one day?’ (elicited)

b. Ich hett gaen ferdich bei zeit kumme hawwe.

I had willingly for you in time come have

‘I would like to have you come in time/I’d like you not to be late.’ (elicited)

Verbs of perception have always required the bare infinitive. This is still generally

the case. For most speakers sentences like (43) sound contrived — we certainly have no

examples in naturally occurring data. However, in elicitation sessions some speakers did

produce them.

31

(43) Ich hab ien gsehne ferdie daer reikumme.

I have him seen for the door in-come

‘I saw him coming through the door.’ (elicited)

We can see then that the fer construction has spread to the subject function, to

complements of nouns and adjectives and to complements of almost all types of verbs. In

some cases, a bare infinitive is a more common option, but only modal verbs do not allow

fer complements at all. For the older speakers, there are a few cases in which there is

alternation between fer and zu and it is to these remaining vestiges of zu that we now turn.

4.4 Remnants of zu and variation in complementation types

The only environment in which the infinitival marker zu occurs in the language of most

speakers is in certain fixed expressions like nix zu mache, nix zu duh ‘nothing to do’ as

illustrated in (44).

(44) Es muss schee sei fer nix zu duh hawwe.

it must lovelybe for nothing to do have

‘It must be lovely to have nothing to do.’

There is also the typical age variation expected of linguistic change — new forms on

the increase (here fer) are more prevalent in younger speakers, whereas forms on their way

out (here zu) are preferred by older speakers. One construction type where older speakers

will use only zu infinitivals is with wh-words, as in (45). Younger speakers will use fer

here as well.

32

(45) Sie hot nimmi gewisst was zu mache; sie waar

she has never known what to do she was

am end vun ierembendel.

at.the end of her cord

‘She never knew what to do; she was at the end of her tether.’

Raising constructions also retain vestiges of zu complementation that reflect these age

differences. For example, both versions of (46) are grammatical. Older speakers, however,

are more likely to produce the first — younger speakers the second.

(46) a. Erscheint en ehrliche man zu sei.

he seems an honest man to be

‘He seems to be an honest man.’ (elicited)

b. Erscheint feren ehrliche man sei.

he seems for an honest man be

‘He seems to be an honest man.’ (elicited)

For older speakers, there are in principle three options for non-finite

complementation as in (47). Of these options, (47b) is usually not open to younger

speakers. We will show in this section that the three constructions are not equivalent but

that their pattern of distribution can be accounted for in terms of semantic distinctions.

The semantic distinctions can only be expressed as tendencies, it is rarely the case for

instance, that the use of fer instead of zu will result in ungrammaticality.

33

(47) a. bare infinitive

b. zu + infinitive

c. fer + infinitive

The first option, the bare infinitive, is used when there is a close link between the

action or event referred to by the main verb and that referred to by the verb of the

complement clause. The stretch of time covered by the two verbs overlaps and typically the

subjects are coreferential. Verbs taking the bare infinitive are modals, verbs of movement

and of perception. In addition there are verbs like gleiche ‘to like’, helfe ‘to help’,

brawiere ‘to try’ and laenne ’to learn’ that typically take a bare infinitive but can also be

used with the two other complement constructions — but, as discussed below, with

different semantics. In this sense, the meaning of WCPG bare infinitive corresponds

closely to that often ascribed to the English gerund complement. Wierzbicka (1988:59-

97), in her semantic account of English complementation describes -ing complements as

having “simultaneous orientation”.32 It is not surprising then that the PG bare infinitive

can normally be translated by the English gerund. We will return to this issue in section

5.2.

The second two options, zu and fer marking, are future oriented, rather than oriented

towards simultaneity. Whereas constructions with bare infinitives imply sameness of time,

these project to an event or an activity in the future, but they do so with subtly different

associations. For example, compare the sentences in (48), from Buehler’s autobiography,

both involving the verb ‘to begin’.

(48) a. Soh dahn in April 1912 hahvich awfahngah shahfah als gnehcht.

so then in April 1912 have.Ibegun work.inf as hired man

‘So then in April 1912 I began working as a hired man.’ (p. 111)

34

b. Dah gasoline enginehuhd yehts awfahgnah tsoo gahbrowcht vairah.

The gasoline engine has now begun to used be

‘The gasoline engine now began to be used.’ (p. 95)

The implied future orientation of the second example is apparent from the sentence that

appears in Buehler’s English version of his autobiograpy — “Gasoline engines were just

beginning to come into use” (1977:94).

It is understandable then that neither zu nor fer happily appear in constructions with

perception verbs like those in (49) — the simultaneity implied here is simply not

compatible with the future orientation of these markers.

(49) a. Ich hab’s kind ghaert heile.

I have.the child heard cry

‘I heard the child crying.’ (elicited)

b. *Ich hab’s kind ghaert fer/zu heile.

For speakers who use both markers, zu and fer are then not equivalent. One way in

which they differ is in the degree of confidence in the projected outcome — fer favours

contexts that are less real. This difference coincides with what Wierzbicka (1988:111-132)

and others (including Jespersen 1909-42:5; Bresnan 1972; Dixon 1991) have described

for to versus for to in English. Where both to and for to are future oriented, English to has

much firmer expectations of effectiveness. As Wierzbicka puts it, the “for-to versions

sound more helpless and less confident” (1988:120). Given the more tentative sense

associated with fer, in some environments, zu is associated with future more strongly and

fer with a more general interpretation.

There are instances where meaning differences between zu and fer complementation

are conspicuous in the language of those older speakers who retain zu complementation.

35

Differences are not always apparent, especially out of context, but where context is

supplied these speakers typically prefer fer when the event in the non-finite clause is less

certain. For example, when presented with the simple sentence ‘I have thirty cows to milk’

all these speakers agreed that either zu or fer was possible. However, when the speakers

were provided with more context, clear preferences emerged. For example, if the speaker

was assumed to be in the middle of milking already and was explaining that they had

thirty more cows to milk before he was done, then speakers overwhelmingly produced the

sentence in (50).

(50) Ich hab thirty kieh zu melge.

I have thirty cows to milk

‘I have thirty cows to milk.’ (elicited)

If, on the other hand, the speaker had just met someone for the first time and was

explaining the various activities on the farm, including the fact that there were thirty cows

to be milked every day, then speakers were more likely to produce (51).

(51) Ich hab thirty kieh fer melge. (elicited)

The event of milking the cows in the first scenario is strongly associated with the

(immediate) future — some cows had just been milked and another thirty were about to

be. The orientation in the second scenario, however, is less specific; the speaker is simply

making a general statement.

Associated with the difference we have already described, different expectations of

effectiveness also show up where the responsibility for the outcome falls to the first

person as opposed to some other person.33 It is striking that when the event is self-

oriented, speakers who have this distinction seem to prefer zu and when it is other-oriented

36

they prefer fer. For example, in translation tasks where a situation was sketched, speakers

overwhelmingly provided (52) with a zu infinitive in response to the English sentence.

(52) Ich hab a hunnert doller tax zu bezahle.

I have a hundred dollar tax to pay

‘I have one hundred dollars tax to pay.’ (elicited)

It is the speaker who is responsible for paying the tax; the greater control here means he or

she can be more confident in the outcome. By contrast, the same speakers produced the

sentence in (53) with a fer infinitive.

(53) Ich hab e hunnert acker frucht ferdresche.

I have a hundred acres grain for thresh

‘I have a hundred acres of grain to thresh.’ (elicited)

Once again the orientation is less specific here. The speaker is simply making a general

statement — there are a hundred acres of grain on the farm that has to be threshed.

The self- versus other-orientation perhaps also plays a role in accounting for the

curious shift from zu to fer in the next sentence:

(54) Ich hab forty kieh zu melge

I have forty cows to milk

un hab zwee man fermich helfe.

and have two men for me help

‘I have forty cows to milk and have two hired men to help me.’ (elicited)

The semantic contribution of fer can also be inferred from examining those verbs

which allow fer to be included or omitted; in other words in those contexts where the fer

37

infinitive now alternates with the bare infinitive. Once again fer consistently shows a more

hypothetical orientation. For example, speakers appeared much happier to use fer where a

subjunctive appears in the higher clause; in other words where there is less confidence in

the outcome expressed in the infinitive clause. For example, speakers preferred helfe with

a bare infinitive in sentence examples like (55a) but produced fer infinitives for sentences

like (55b).

(55) a. Erhelft mich de kieh melge.

he helps me the cows milk

‘He’s helping me milk the cows.’ (elicited)

b. Eskennt helfe ferihn besser behaeve.

it could help for him better behave

‘It could help him to behave better.’ (elicited)

In (55a) the activities in the main clause and in the complement clause are happening at the

same time — the helping accompanies the milking. In (55b), however, the appearance of

fer follows from the tentativeness of the main clause subjunctive — the clause expresses

a potential event.

Similarly gleiche ‘to like’ prefers a bare infinitive. In examples like (56) the

enjoyment coincides with the activity — fer clauses are ungrammatical here.34

(56) Ich gleich zu leit schwetze.

I like to people talk

‘I like talking to people.’

It seems fer infinitives with gleiche are only acceptable with a subjunctive in the higher

clause — even better with an intensifier like ‘really’.

38

(57) Ich really deed gleiche fere tiescher sei.

I really would like for a teacher be

‘I would really like to be a teacher.’ (elicited)

However, while speakers generally accepted (57), many found the next example borderline

(hence the question mark).

(58) ?Deedscht du gleiche fere kobbli kaffee hawwe.

would you like for a cup coffe have

‘Would you like to have a cup of coffee.’ (elicited)

Both sentences have a future component — both refer to unrealized activities. Where they

differ is in the nature of the event in the complement clause. Example (57) is a wistful

thought , the outcome may never eventuate — certainly it is less assured than the

possibility of a cup of coffee.

Similarly, the verb brawiere ‘to try’ typically occurs with a bare infinitive. However,

when speakers are not sounding confident, fer clauses may be produced. Compare the two

sentences in (59). Again the modifier conveys the notion of strong desire.

(59) a. Ich bin am brawiereDeitsch laenne.

I am on.the try PG learn

‘I am trying to learn Pennsylvania German.’

b. Ich bin really hatt am brawiere ferDeitsch laenne.

I am really hard on.the try for PG learn

‘I am really trying hard to learn Pennsylvania German.’

39

Wierzbicka (1988) discusses the similar English examples given in (60). She provides

these examples to support the assumption that there are clear semantic differences between

to infinitives with and without for. According to Wierzbicka (1988:109), (60a) ‘suggests

a confident expectation which is absent in the (b) version.’

(60) a. I want him to come,

b. I want very much for him to come.

It seems likely to us, however, that for is present in (60b) for structural, rather than

semantic, reasons; the fact that the adverbial intervenes between the verb and its infinitival

complement may trigger a clearer marking of the left edge of that complement and for

provides such a marker. In transformational approaches, the explanation would lie in very

much blocking Case assignment (or Case checking) in (60b). It is difficult to judge

between these two approaches since the number of modifiers that can occur in this

position is very limited. We do not wish to exclude the possibility that structural reasons

may also motivate the occurrence of fer in some of the WCPG data.

5 The origins and spread of the PG fer(...zu) construction

That which is now an amazingly homogeneous language throughout the Pennsylvania

German speaking areas of the US and Canada grew out of a blend of the many different

dialects which came into Pennsylvania during the early immigration in the late 17th and

early 18th century — from the Palatinate in Germany and surrounding areas like Bavaria,

Hessen, Swabia and Württemberg in Germany, as well as the German-speaking areas of

Switzerland. When dialects come together in this way, a kind of melting pot effect is usual

and in what seems to have been a remarkably short period of time, all the different varieties

of these early German-speaking migrants had gone through a general levelling process to

produce what we now know as Pennsylvania German. The outcome is a language which,

in phonology and grammar, resembles most closely the modern German dialect of the

40

eastern Palatinate — Rhein-Frankisch (cf. Buffington 1970; Raith 1992). The languages

are similar in structure, although prolonged isolation from continental German and

increased contact with English has meant Pennsylvania German is now diverging more

and more (cf. Burridge (1992, 1998) and Louden (1992, 1997) for an account of both

internally and contact-induced changes). In morphology there are also some Alamanic

elements, seen for example in the diminutive suffix -li and also in some of the verbal

morphology.

5.1 Fer...zu as a purposive construction

Given what we have found in the early sources and what we find in the German dialects of

the eastern Palatinate, it seems most likely that the fer...zu construction established itself as

the purposive construction in the language as soon as we can actually speak of one

language called Pennsylvania German. As we saw in section 2, although it is not used in

Standard German, the preposition cognate with fer is a common trait in Germanic

purposives and it is not too surprising that it became the standard in PG. The development

of the fer...zu construction as an adverbial clause marking purpose is a paradigm example

of the process of reanalysis. There is therefore the very good chance that PG acquired it

independently. It is precisely the same development that has taken place to give rise to the

English complementiser construction for...to (cf. Jespersen 1922; Ebert 1978;12-13;

Harris and Campbell 1995: 62), as well as the German infinitival construction um...zu ‘in

order to’ (cf. Ebert 1978; 12, 30-1; Harris and Campbell 1995: 62). In both these cases

the prepositions (for and um) + NP originally belonged to the main clause but were later

reanalysed as part of the infinitival construction.

In the case of the PG construction, we can reconstruct such a path of development.

Sentences like the following would originally have involved a prepositional phrase

structure:

41

(61) [Ekind waar in de schtor g’schickt [ fer rode peffer]] [zu kaafe]

achild was in the store sent for red pepper to buy

‘A child was sent to the store for red pepper, to buy (it).’

The close logical relationship existing between rode peffer as the complement of the

preposition fer and the understood object of kaafe as the infinitival verb then comes to be

expressed by reanalysing fer as a complementiser introducing a new subordinate clause.

The boundary shifts and the prepositional complement is reanalysed as the object of the

infinitive

(61') [E kind waar in de schtor g’schickt] [fer [rode peffer zu kaafe]]

a child was in the store sent for red pepper to buy

‘A child was sent to the store (for) to buy red pepper’

Once this occurred, it is possible for the new complementiser to appear without an object.

Here’s an example from Horne’s early manual (1905 [1875]).

(62) Ich bin heit rooner kooma for tsu sana weaga a wennich bisness.

I am today down come for to see about a little business

‘I came down today to see about some business.’ (Horne 1905:157)

Exactly when these internal forces were at work is impossible to say. Unfortunately there

just is not enough early and reliable data to accurately chart the development and the

subsequent expansion of this construction. It seems most likely that this reanalysis could

have occurred in some of the original input dialects and therefore represents an inherited

feature.

42

5.2 The spread of fer(...zu) to complement clauses

Based on what we know about the dialects in the areas of Germany (and to some extent

Switzerland) from which the first PG speakers emigrated, we can assume that when PG

was first established as a common language, fer...zu was not used in complement clauses,

but we do have evidence that the construction had started to spread to the subject function

and to complement positions by the late 19th century. The loss of zu probably started

around the same time, but we find fer...zu clauses in general use into the 1970s. Given that

in WCPG (and maybe in other varieties of PG, it is hard to be absolutely certain on the

basis of the existing sources) fer now occurs in all constructions except as complement of

modal verbs and that zu is completely lost amongst younger speakers, this has been a

remarkably fast change; it has all happened in about 200 to 300 years. In particular, the

final stages of the loss of zu have been remarkably rapid, in only 30 years it has gone from

being in productive use to be being completely lost.

We can compare this to the spread of the to infinitive in English. The to infinitive

also appeared first as a purposive, but appears to have spread to complement functions as

early as the early Old English period (e.g. Miller 2002:187–189). The original semantics

of to “direction towards” remains in the purposive and even after the spread to

complement clauses — as Los (1999:236ff) points out, when to complementation spread

from complement of nouns and adjectives to complements of verbs, it spread first to GOAL

arguments. During the Middle English period the directional force weakened and the use

of to infinitives increased. But the change was slow — even into the 1500s to was still

competing with the bare infinitive (although showing clear signs of winning). As Visser

(1963-73:§901) concludes, “it took a long time for the particle to to be reduced from a

preposition expressing motion, direction ... to a semantically empty sandhi form,

functioning as a mere sign of the infinitive”.

It is common typologically for purposive markers to develop into general infinitival

markers, Haspelmath (1989) refers to it as “a universal path of grammaticalisation”.

43

Indeed, the Old English bare infinitive ending in -an is assumed to have had a purposive

meaning too, which was weakened and then reinforced by to (cf. Poutsma 1923, Miller

2002:188). Similarly to the English to, the German preposition zu became a marker of

purpose and then spread throughout the system to become a general marker of the

infinitive. Following Givón (1971), who described disappearance is the end point of

grammaticalisation, we can say then that the WCPG ze has completed the

grammaticalisation process.

Even though the spread from purposive to complement that we see in fer(...zu) in

PG is a common type of change typologically, we can still ask why it occurred in PG, and

why it happened so quickly, especially since it appears not to have taken place in the

dialects of German which formed the starting point for PG. A suggestion found in the

literature is that it is due to influence from English (Reed 1948:243–244, Costello

1978:36–44, van Ness 1994:436). For a number of reasons, we do not find this a

plausible explanation.

Firstly, the PG construction has always been used far more widely than the English

for...to construction. As we showed in section 3.1, even in those regional varieties like

Ottawa Valley English (Carroll 1983) and Belfast English (Henry 1992) that have a more

extensive distribution of the for...to construction, it is much more limited than the PG

equivalent. Furthermore, the WCPG community does not speak Ottawa Valley English,

nor are they likely to come into contact with people who do. The other aspect of the

change, namely the disappearance of zu, has no parallel in English — to the contrary,

considering the history of English, it is for which has been on the wane.

Costello (1978) is most explicit in arguing for the spread of fer(...zu) as a contact

induced change. Costello assumes that the variety of PG that he studies — spoken in

south-eastern Pennsylvania (SPG)— differs from general PG (StdPG, as described in

Buffington & Barba (1965)) in a number of respects; for instance in that SPG has a

complementiser fer whereas StdPG does not. As already mentioned in section 3.3, even

though Buffington and Barba (1965) do not discuss fer(...zu) complementation, such

44

constructions can be found in the texts that they use. Hence we doubt that there was

actually a definite difference in the use of fer(…zu) in subject and complement clauses

between SPG and StdPG. If he was right about there being two strikingly different

varieties in this respect — one in which fer(…zu) has spread and one in which it has not

— this would make his explanation in terms of contact even less plausible, since both

varieties would have had the same amount of contact with English.

Costello (1978) steeps his analysis in the transformational framework of the time,

but ignoring the formal detail of the analysis, the essence of the analysis is clear. He

compares the zu infinitival which he claims is the only option in StdPG with a fer(…zu)

construction from SPG and assumes that the difference lies in the inventory of

complementisers; SPG does not have fer but StdPG does. In his view, fer has been

borrowed from English; “this is all the more plausible inasmuch as the semantic and

phonological overlap of E for and SPG fer is otherwise close” (1978:39). In the same

non-finite construction in StdPG, he assumes that the complementiser as (standardly used

in finite complementation) is selected but the subject to a ‘complementiser deletion rule’.

He suggests that this ‘complementiser deletion rule’ is native to PG and the fact that it

does not apply to fer in SPG is further evidence that fer is not a native PG word. The

outdated theoretical outlook apart, the weakness in Costello’s account lies in the fact that

he completely ignores the fact that fer must have been part of the complementiser

inventory of both varieties since they both, beyond any doubt, have a purposive fer...zu

construction, so that if the fer of infinitival complements is “borrowed” from anywhere, it

is from another construction within the language.

A further reason not to believe that the spread of fer...zu is a contact induced change

is the fact that the chronology is wrong. Fer...zu in complement clauses is already

extensive in Horne’s manual (1905 [1875]), at a time when English would have had little

or no influence on the grammar of PG since the PG speakers had limited contact with

speakers of English and little knowledge of English. Originally the diglossic arrangement

involved High German — this was then and still is the language of the Bible for Plain

45

Mennonites — as the H-variety. Horne himself devotes half his manual to helping PG

speakers acquire English. In the preface to the first edition (1905:7), he describes the PG

people as labouring “in their entire ignorance of the English language”. English is

described as being to these people “as much a dead language as Latin and Greek”. As he

further goes on to explain, “they cannot pick it up on the street, nor do they learn it in

school”. Of course, there is now a very different diglossic arrangement, with English

replacing High German as the H-variety. This closer contact with English means influence

from English on both the vocabulary and grammar of PG. However, it comes too late to

provide the birthplace for the original fer(...zu) construction. Furthermore, as Louden

(1988:209) points out: “That ‘fer’, rather than ‘zu’, which is closely cognate to AE

[American English, KEB/KB] ‘to’, should be expanded testifies to the apparent lack of

influence from AE.’

We conclude then that the spread of fer...zu clauses to subject and complement

positions is not a contact induced change, but a language internal change which involves

reanalysis and generalisation, like the examples discussed in section 5.1. This type of

reanalysis is also assumed to lie behind similar changes from purposive marker to

infinitival markers in other languages (for English, see for instance Los (1998, 1999) and

references there). Consider example (63).

(63) [Es is ungweenlich ferde John] [harti Bicher zu lese]

it is unusual for theJohn hard books to read

‘It’s unusual for John to read difficult books.’

The original clause boundary would have occurred after the fer phrase with fer de John

forming a prepositional phrase which was part of the main clause. The close logical

relationship existing here between the complement of the preposition and semantic subject

of lese, John, comes to be expressed by reanalysing fer as a complementiser-like element

heading a new subordinate clause. The boundary shifts and the prepositional complement

46

is reanalysed as the subject of the infinitive. Once this stage has been reached, the fer-

clause can be preposed to appear in sentence initial position as in (63’).35

(63’) Fer de John harti Bicher zu lese is ungweenlich.

‘For John to read difficult books is unusual.’

Punctuation in some of the early examples supports this development. On several

occasions in Ben Sauder’s poetry from the 1930s, for example, commas are used to

separate the fer prepositional phrase constituent from the zu infinitive clause. An example

is provided in (64).

(64) Sei Heimuthhut ga-kusht, Finf Hundert Dolla,

his home has cost five hundred dollar

Un Finf Dolla des Yahr, vor der Tox, zu be-zahle

and five dollarthe year for the tax to pay

‘His home cost 500 dollars, and five dollars a year tax to pay.’

As the prepositional force of fer weakens and it expands into more and more

constructions, it shifts from a prepositional-like element to a complementiser-like element,

eventually taking over from zu (we will discuss the syntactic status of fer in Section 5.4.)

With further generalisation, the fer-clause can extend to appear after adjectives, nouns and

verbs which would not otherwise take the preposition fer. The (understood) subject of the

infinitive verb is no longer restricted to an original prepositional complement.

(65) Ich hab net's haez fersaage er sol net.

I have not.the heart for say he should not

‘I haven’t the heart to say he shouldn’t.’

47

Louden (1988, 1997), who agrees that the fer(...zu) construction is native to PG,

presents an interesting proposal for more recent developments in PG complementation

that does appeal to contact with English. He notes the correspondences in the current

distribution of PG fer clauses and English to clauses, on the one hand, and between PG

bare infinitives and English present participles, on the other (1988:212). These

correspondences he then attributes to convergence. However, given the scenario for the

changes that led to the current complementation system in PG, these similarities need not

be due to convergence, but can rather be explained in terms of similar changes having

taken place in the two languages. The path we have described for fer from purposive to

infinitival marker is similar to that which to has followed and hence it is not surprising that

their distribution and meaning with respect to another complement form — bare infinitive

in PG and -ing form in English (the bare infinitive in English has a much more restricted

distribution) — are similar.

5.3 The loss of zu

As we said in section 2 and 3.3, the earliest sources of PG that we have at our disposal

show some loss of zu from which we can conclude that it probably had been losing its

distinctiveness for a long time. Ben Sauder’s poetry and Alan Buehler’s writing contain

many examples of bare infinitives with verbs normally demanding a zu infinitive.

Buffington and Barba (1965:79) state “The tendency among present-day speakers and

writers of PG [here American KEB/KB] is to omit the zu more and more frequently”.36

Phonological reduction and omission of unstressed material is a striking feature of

PG generally. You would expect this of course of a language that is spoken only and has

no written form. But the nature of the PG speech community may also be playing a role

here. Trudgill (1995), for example, argues that rapid grammaticalization in dialects in East

Anglia is related to the greater tolerance for inference in isolated close-knit speech

communities. There is much that can be taken for granted in such communities and the

kinds of fast-speech phenomena that arise from the reduced need for elaboration produce

48

the sorts of phonological changes that support the development of new grammatical

structures.

Listeners who are operating in a familiar environment in interaction with

speakers whose language or dialect they are familiar with, with whom they are

well acquainted, with whom they interact frequently and with whom they share

a large fund of common knowledge, can made do with less phonetic and

semantic information than listeners who are less familiar with the situation, the

topic and other interlocutors. (1995:144)

The Pennsylvania German speech community is about as close-knit and integrated a

community as you can find — it is also small and isolated. In this community there is no

social distance and people are deeply involved with one another. As Enninger (1985:255)

describes it; “intra-group interaction is performed in the solidarity network of brethren

and sisters which is at the same time a kinship network of close to distant relatives, i.e. die

freindschaft”. It is very possible then that the speed of the changes in PG is connected to

the greater allowance for inference in this isolated and very close-knit community. We also

refer to Burridge (2002, In progress) for a discussion of how the special socio-cultural

status and religious beliefs of the Plain Mennonites may contribute to the direction and

speed of this particular change and other linguistic developments.

5.4 The current status of fer

So far, we have considered exclusively the changes in the function of fer, we have

concluded that the function of fer has taken the typologically common route of going from

being a purposive to being a general marker of non-finiteness. The meaning of fer has

become more general, it has undergone grammaticalisation. 37 We will turn now to

consider whether these functional changes have been accompanied by a structural change.

49

Many views of grammaticalisation assume that structural changes are part of the

grammaticalisation process, in particular, as an element grammaticalises in function, its

“syntactic scope” is assumed to become more narrow, i.e. the syntactic unit with which it

combines will be smaller after grammaticalisation (see for example Lehmann (1995

[1982]), but for a dissenting voice we refer to Tabor & Traugott (1998)).

At least since Chomsky (1986) it has been common in syntactic theory to assume

that a clause is built up around a clausal spine which consists of the VP, which is

dominated by an IP, the locus for verbal inflection and related features. IP in turn is

dominated by CP, which is associated with features relating to clause type.38 This gives us

a tree like (66), some version of which is now adopted not only in transformational theory,

but also in Lexical Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001) and some versions of Head-

driven Phrase Structure Grammar (Sag and Wasow 1999).39

(66) CP

C IP

I VP

In these terms, it seems clear that in the original fer...zu construction, fer occurs in C

— it associated with the full clause — and zu is found in I — it is associated with the verb

phrase or possibly it is part of V.40 The question then is whether as fer has taken over the

functions of zu it has also taken over its structural position, i.e. has fer been “lowered” to

the I position or to the actual verbal complex? This would be equivalent to asking whether

the syntactic scope of fer has been reduced.

For Standard German, it is plausible to analyse zu as being part of the verb, in the

same way that morphologically bound verbal inflection is (Bech 1983) and this is

plausible also for ze in PG. However, it is clear that even if the structural position of fer

50

has changed to a position lower than C, it is not part of the actual verb. The difference

illustrated by the examples in (67) lead us to this conclusion; (67c) is completely

unacceptable ((67b) can only be elicited from older speakers).

(67) a. Esis hatt ferdie sache uffpicke.

it is difficult for those things pick.up

b. Esis hatt die sache uffzupicke.

it is difficult those things pick.up

c. * Es is hatt die sache uffferpicke.

‘It is difficult to pick these things up.’ (elicited)

This still leaves us with two different positions, I and C, as a plausible locu for fer.

At this point we return to compare the WCPG data with the analyses discussed in

section 3.1. The analysis of Ottawa Valley English (Carroll 1983) involved fer sometimes

analysed as a C element and sometimes as a preposition. As we have seen, the differences

in distribution between for in OVE and fer in WCPG are substantial, with the OVE

distribution being much more limited. Hence the analysis Carroll proposes for OVE is not

applicable to WCPG. The analysis proposed by Henry (1992, 1995) for Belfast English

for...to involved for being generated in C, but lowered to cliticise to I in clauses where

there is no overt subject or where the overt subject occurs to the left of for (this happens in

Exceptional Case Marking constructions and with want type verbs, see examples (17) and

(18) and discussion there). We prefer to think of grammatical organisation not in terms of

movement, but rather in terms of parallel correspondences, as in Lexical Functional

Grammar (LFG), and hence we would not consider “lowering”, as such, as a way of

describing the facts. However, if there was similar evidence for WCPG, we could assume

that fer is generated in C in some constructions and in I in others.

Many of the criteria for distinguishing C elements from I elements which are used

in the literature to which we refer in this section are dependent on assumptions internal to

51

transformational theory in its Government and Binding version. For instance, Subject-to-

Subject Raising (SSR), as in Oscar i seems ti to like meatballs is assumed not to be

possible across a CP and hence to in this sentence must be an I element.41 As we saw in

section 4.3, such constructions in WCPG do take fer, but it is one of the environments

where older speakers often use zu. However, since we do not use a transformational

approach, this is not a convincing argument for us to analyse fer as an I element. It should

also be pointed out here that even though the infinitival marker att in Swedish is generally

assumed to be a C element (e.g. Beukema & den Dikken and references there), it can

occur in SSR constructions, as in (68).42

(68) a. Ungdomar nu för tiden verkar att vara Swedish

young people these days seem.fin inf.mark be

mycket säkrare, ...

much more certain

‘Young people these days seem to be much more certain’

b. Tiden verkar att gå.

time.def seem.fin inf.mark go

‘Time seems to pass.’ PAROLE

A more generally applicable criterion relates to word order. Returning to the

property described as syntactic scope above, if WCPG fer has changed its structural

position to occupy the one where zu was, i.e. I, then this change ought to be discernible in

its linear position relative to other items in the clause. It is interesting here to compare the

response to a translation task of an older speaker (69a) with that of a younger speaker

(69b).

52

(69) a. Erscheint en ehrliche man zu sei.

he seems an honest man to be

‘He seems to be an honest man.’ (elicited)

b. Erscheint feren ehrliche man sei.

he seems for an honest man be

‘He seems to be an honest man.’ (elicited)

Judging by these two examples, for speakers who use fer instead of zu, fer does not occur

in the same position as zu would, but remains in a higher position.

The linear order between the major elements of the clause in non-finite subordinate

clause with both fer and zu was as in (70).

(70) fer SUBJECT NEGATION zu VERB

If fer has lowered, it ought now to occur to the right of the subject and the negation.

We have seen constructions with fer complementation in which the semantic subject

of the verb in the lower clause precedes fer, as in (39b) and (40b), repeated here as (71a)

and (71b), respectively.

(71) a. Sie ecschpect dich ferkumme frie

she expects you for come early

‘She expects you to come early.’

b. Ich hab ien als ghalde fere bissel arm sei.

I have him always held for a little stupid be

‘I’ve always considered him to be a little bit thick.’ (elicited)

53

Both these construction types are unusual in that they involve a discrepancy between

syntactic position and semantic relation, these are the kind of examples which have been

analysed as raising constructions or as Exceptional Case Marking. As we saw in Belfast

English, it is exactly this type of construction which behaves differently from other non-

finite clauses with subjects. We can assume that the NP which is the semantic subject of

the lower verb is represented syntactically in the matrix clause, so that the NP’s position

cannot be used to argue for a lowering of fer.

Non-finite constructions with the semantic subject in the syntactic subject position

of the non-finite verb are not common but we do get them with purposives — even though

there is a strong tendency to choose a finite construction instead —and when we do the

subject can only follow fer, as in (72).

(72) Fer ien die sache uffpicke is hatt.

for him those things pick up is difficult

‘For him to pick those things up is difficult.’ (elicited)

A sentence like this then indicates that fer has not changed its position.

Similarly, the negation net follows fer as in the sentences in (73).

(73) a. Eswaer dumm fer's net kaafe.

it would be stupid for.it not buy

‘It would be stupid not to buy it.’ (elicited)

b. Sie ecschpect ien fernet glei do sei.

she expects him for not soon there be

‘She expects him not to get there soon.’ (elicited)

54

c. Er seemt fer net en guter man sei.43

He seem for not a good man be

‘He seems not to be a good man.’ (elicited)

Our conclusion on the basis of this data is that even though the function of fer has

drastically changed, its position has not. If we followed the strict logic of transformational

theory, this is surprising; strictly speaking, any functional shift of an item such as fer

would have to be accompanied by a positional shift since the material that was formerly

associated with the C head now marks categories that belong to the I head. This logic is

indeed in evidence in some of what is said about grammaticalisation by Roberts &

Roussou (1991). However, given that the structural changes to fer appear to lag behind the

functional changes by quite a bit, an account in terms of a theory in which function is not

dependent on structural position then is more appropriate. Using LFG terminology, we

can say that the mapping between c(onstituent)-structure and f(unctional)-structure has

changed. A representation of the f-structure of the original (subjectless) purposive fer is

found in (74a) and that of zu in (74b).

(74) a. fer ↑PRED= ‘fer <↑XCOMP>’

↑TYPE= purposive

↑ ∈ (↑ADJUNCT)

b. zu ↑ = ↓

Here fer combines with a subjectless clause (XCOMP) to form a constituent that has

purposive meaning and belongs to the set of adjuncts that its mother has. This ensures an

adjunct function, but allows for further adjuncts to be associated with the mother. The

infinitival zu, on the other hand, is a particle which does not add meaning itself, the arrows

indicate that functional information from the node is passed up to make it part of the same

55

f-structure as the mother. This is a similar interpretation of the function of zu to that

adopted in Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar of English to as a raising verb without

its own semantics (Pollard and Sag 1995:143).

By contrast, the more recently evolved fully desemanticised general function, fer

would have the same f-structure as zu in (74b), as in (75). Since it is also used as a

purposive, it would retain an alternative f-structure as in (74a).

(75) fer ↑ = ↓

The position in the c-structure of fer, on the other hand has not changed, if we assume a C

and an I projection, then fer is in the C position in both (74) and (75), as illustrated in

(76a) and (76b) and hence the mapping between c-structure and f-structure has changed.

Note that the position of the non-finite clause relative to the rest of the sentence is different

since one is a purposive adjunct and one is a complement clause.44

(76) a. VP

VP CP

C IP

fer I VP

zu …

56

b. X’

X CP

C IP

fer …

The trees in (76) represent the structural properties of fer in a generally accepted view of

phrase structure, but we would like to indicate another type of solution here. Rather than

assign syntactic headship to elements like fer, one could treat such purely functional

elements in terms of a feature which finds exponence in the clause in much the same way

that inflectional elements finds exponence within a word, i.e. fer would be a phrasal affix.

This would be a solution along the lines suggested by Anderson (1992, 1993, 1996),

where rules similar in nature to word formation rules guide the instantiation of such

functional elements. Their position within the phrase to which they belong is then guided

by Optimality Theoretic alignment constraints, which would state that fer aligns with the

left edge of the clause, whereas zu aligns with the left edge of a smaller verbal unit. Which

of the two types of solution one opts for can then become an empirical issue; does fer play

the role of head in the syntax. Here criteria can be found, for instance like those used in

Bresnan (1972), which is often cited as the source of the idea that complementisers head

their phrases.

Naturally, it may well be that fer is still changing as far as its structural position

goes, maybe in a few decades, fer will show more of the properties which we associate

with I elements like zu. In fact, even though speakers will not produce sentences like (77),

where the negation precedes fer, especially younger speakers say that they sound

acceptable.

57

(77) Net ferien geh waer dumm.

not for ien geh would be stupid

‘For him not to go would be stupid.’

The fact that fer is a C element may, in fact provide an explanation for the

construction type where zu seems to be most persistent; wh constructions. Assuming then

that fer is a C-element, we may be able to explain the reluctance of older speakers to accept

fer in wh-constructions like (78) (cf example (45) in section 4.4).

(78) Erhat net gwisst was zu duh.

he has not known what for do

‘He didn’t know what to do.’

This could be associated with that which was dubbed the “Doubly filled COMP filter” by

Chomsky and Lasnik (1977). 45 This refers to the restriction on some languages that a CP

which contains a wh-phrase in its specifier position may not also contain an overt C

element. Compare Swedish, which does not have this restriction, with German, which does

have it as in (79).

(79) a. Han undrade vem som lånade stolen. Swedish

he wondered who comp borrowed chair.def

b. Erfragte, wer (*dass) den Stuhl geliehen hat. Standard German

he asked who comp the chair borrowed have

‘He asked who borrowed the chair.’

c. Er hot g’frogt wer (*as) de stuhl g’lehnt het. WCPG

he had asked who comp the chair borrowed have

‘He asked who borrowed the chair.’

58

As (79c) shows, the data in PG is parallel to the Standard German and hence we can

assume that the restriction which is expressed as the ‘Doubly filled Comp’ filter applies in

PG (though it is not obvious that a “filter” is the best way of capturing this restriction). If

fer is a C element, we would not expect to find it co-occurring with a wh phrase. The fact

that younger speakers do use fer in sentences like (78) could then be seen as a sign that

the syntactic status of fer is changing.

There is a further factor which may influence possible change in status of fer. The

normally verb final nature of PG subordinate clauses does mean that clause initial fer

remains separated from the clause final verbal complex — it would be unexpected in a

Germanic language to have something associated with verbal inflection isolated in this

way. However, word order changes in PG are seeing violations of the so-called the verbal

brace (or Satzrahmen). Increasingly elements like arguments of the verb and adjuncts are

appearing after the verb(s) and thereby bringing discontinuous verbal constituents closer

together. The relaxing of verb final order in this way means that fer often now appears

adjacent to the verb, as in example (80). This may well also speed up a structural change

which associates fer more closely with the verb.

(80) Awwer er saagt imblatz fersaage “oh yes”

but he says in place for say oh yes

no saagt er immer “oh ei”.

then says he always oh ei

‘But he says in place of saying ‘oh yes’, he always says ‘oh ei’.’

6 Concluding remarks

The data we have provided in this paper show that fer in (WC)PG, which was originally

used exclusively in purposive constructions, has undergone a functional change, or maybe

better, a functional split, since the original purposive function remains. We have shown

59

that fer is now also a general marker that occurs in all non-finite environments except as

complement of modal verbs. This radical change has been facilitated by the simultaneous

almost complete loss of zu as an infinitival marker. There is evidence from the earliest

sources that these changes started as soon as the different dialects spoken by the

anabaptist settlers blended into one language. However, there is also evidence that into the

1970s, zu was still in productive use and given that zu is now completely lost in the

language of younger speakers, this change has been remarkably rapid.

In many of the accounts of linguistic changes in Pennsylvania German that can be

found in the literature, contact with English is assumed to be the major factor. Only rarely

is the change put in a wider typological perspective. Naturally, we agree that English does

have an influence on PG, as one would expect, and there is quite extensive borrowing of

words from English in PG, as will have become clear in many of the examples used here.

However, when the change that has taken place in PG is one which is in evidence in a

broad typological sample of languages, which have not found themselves in a similar

contact situation, then one has to be cautious with positing contact explanations. It seems

clear to us that the development of fer from a purposive marker to a general infinitival

marker is exactly such a case. This change is what Haspelmath (1989) describes as a

‘universal path of grammaticalization’ and he shows that it has happened in languages

which are completely unrelated to PG and which are not under contact influence from

English. Indeed, it is the same change that zu has undergone in the history of German.

The loss of ze in PG can be seen as the last step in this grammaticalisation.

However, even in the case of a cross-linguistically common change, it is possible

that in one particular language it happens under the influence from another language. One

thing we have done in this paper then is to look carefully at the circumstances of this

change. We have considered the later developments of dialects which can be assumed to

have been part of the input to the variety which became PG, we have considered for...to

constructions in other varieties of Germanic and, most importantly, we have looked at the

60

historical sources of PG that are available to us and at recordings of Waterloo County PG

from the late 1980s to the present day.

Looking then at the more local environment, we have shown that it is common in

Germanic to use the for preposition to strengthen the purposive meaning when an older

purposive marker has lost its force (section 2). The fact that fer — and not um — is the

purposive marker is not surprising and the suggestion that this was due originally to

French influence on varieties spoken near French speaking areas (e.g. Lockwood 1968;

Ebert 1978:31) needs to examined more closely. Again, it is common cross-linguistically

for the benefactive preposition to be used to strengthen a weakened purposive marker

(Haspelmath 1989).

The only variety of Germanic which we could find described in the literature which

has undergone a spread of the fer...zu construction is Luxemburgish. We saw that as far

as the descriptions go, the development appears to be very similar to that in PG, with the

exception of the loss of ze, which has not taken place in Luxemburgish. These changes

must have taken place without the influence of English, since the contact between English

and Luxemburgish has not been strong, until possibly recently (Newton 1996; Hoffmann

1996).

The strongest arguments against this PG change as a contact induced phenomenon

come from the facts of the change itself. As we have shown, claims that PG (translation)

borrowed fer as a complementiser in non-finite complement from English (Reed 1948,

Costello 1978) are unsubstantiated; at the time when fer started to appear in

complementiser clauses, PG already had fer as a complementiser in non-finite purposives.

Furthermore, whereas for as a complementiser has been losing ground in English, it is

gaining ground in PG. Finally, as we showed in section 5.2, the timing is also wrong; at

the time when fer started to spread to complement clauses, influence from English was

weak or non-existent. The evidence all appears to point in one direction, the appearance of

fer as the general marker of non-finiteness; the spread of fer(...zu) and the loss of zu, is

not a contact induced change. Instead the developments of these elements follow common

61

paths of linguistic change; a purposive marker develops into a general marker of infinitival

complements and eventually disappears. As the former purely purposive marker

generalises, a new purposive marker is introduced into the system. A striking fact about

WCPG is that even though fer has spread to almost all infinitival contexts, no new

purposive marker has been introduced.

The change that has taken place can be seen as an instance of grammaticalisation.

An interesting aspect of this particular change is that the generalisation in function —

from purposive marker to general non-finiteness — which has taken place over the last

300 years or so, has not been paralleled by structural changes. The evidence is that fer is

still an element associated with the clause level; it is a C element. In terms of formal

analysis, this points in the direction of a framework within which structure and function

can be represented in separate dimensions. Indeed, we sketched a description of the

change in terms of Lexical-Functional Grammar. In the language of the youngest speakers

we have recorded, we do, however, find initial signs of structural changes to fer and to

non-finite clause structure. Given the speed of change that has been observable in WCPG,

for example in the loss of zu, it will be interesting to reconsider the distribution of fer in,

say, 25 years’ time.

62

References

Anderson, Stephen R. 1992. A-morphous morphology. Cambridge: CUP.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1993. Wackernagel’s revenge: clitics, morphology, and the

syntax of second position. Language 69.68–98.

Anderson, Stephen R. 1996. How to put your clitics in their place, or why the best

account of second-position phenomena may be something like the optimal

one. The Linguistic Review 13.165–191.

Bech, Gunnar 1983. Studien über das deutsche Verbum infinitum. Tübingen:

Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Beukema, Frits & Marcel den Dikken 1989. The position of the infinitival marker

in the Germanic languages. Sentential complementation and the lexicon, ed.

by D. Jaspers, W. Klooster, Y. Putseys & P. Seuren, 57–75. Dordrecht:

Foris.

Bresnan, Joan 1979. Theory of complementation in English syntax. New York:

Garland.

Bresnan, Joan 2001. Lexical-functional syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.

Bruch, Robert 1973. Luxemburger grammatik in volkstümlichem abriss.

Luxembourg: Editions de la Section de Linguistique de l’Institut gr.-d.

Buehler, Alan Undated. Stories in PG, Unpublished manuscript.

Buehler, Alan 1977. The Pennsylvania German Dialect and the Life of an Old

Order Mennonite. Publication of the Pennsylvania Folklore Society of

Ontario.

Buffington, Albert F. 1970. Similarities and differences between Pennsylvania

German and the Rhenish Palatinate dialects. Proceedings of the

Pennsylvania German Folklore Society 3.91-116.

Buffington, Albert F. & Barba, Preston A. 1965. (2nd ed) A Pennsylvania

German grammar. Allentown, Pa.: Schlechter.

63

Burridge, Kate & Enninger, Werner 1992. Diachronic Studies on the Languages

of the Anabaptists. Bochum: Universitätsverlag Brockmeyer.

Burridge, Kate 1992. Creating grammar: examples from Pennsylvania German,

Burridge & Enninger (eds), 199-242.

Burridge, Kate 1998. Throw the Baby from the Window a Cookie: English and

Pennsylvania German in Contact. Case, typology and grammar. Essays in

Honor of Barry J. Blake, ed. by A. Siewierska & J. J Song, 71-94.

Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Burridge, Kate 2002a. Steel tyres and rubber tyres — maintenance or loss:

Pennsylvania German in the “horse and buggy” communities of Ontario.

Language maintenance for endangered languages: an active approach, ed. by

David Bradley & Maya Bradley. London: Curzon Press.

Burridge, Kate 2002b. Changes within Pennsylvania German grammar as

enactments of Anabaptist world-view. Ethnosyntax: explorations in grammar

and culture, ed. by Nick Enfield. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burridge, Kate In progress. Speaking plain — changes to the structure of

infinitival clauses in Pennsylvania German. Ms, Monash University,

Melbourne.

Carroll, Susan 1983. Remarks on for-to infinitives. Linguistic Analysis

12.415–451.

Chomsky, Noam 1981. Lectures on Goverment and Binding. Dordrecht: Foris.

Chomsky, Noam 1986. Barriers. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, Ma: MIT Press.

Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik 1977. Filters and control. Linguistic Inquiry

8.425–504.

64

Chomsky, Noam & Howard Lasnik 1993. The theory of Principles and

Parameters. An international handbook of contemporary research, ed.by

Joachim Jacobs, Arnim von Stechow, Wolfgang Sternefeld & Theo

Vennemann, 506–69. Berlin: de Gruyter. Also as Chomsky, Noam &

Howard Lasnik 1995. The theory of Principles and Parameters. The

Minimalist Program, by Noam Chomsky, 13–127. Cambridge, Ma: MIT

Press.

Christophory, Jul 1974. Mir schwätze Lëtxebuergesch. Luxembourg: Imprimerie

Saint-Paul, Société Anonyme.

Cinque, Guglielmo 1999. Adverbs and functional heads : a cross-linguistic

perspective. Oxford : Oxford University Press.

Costello, John R. 1978. Syntactic change and second language acquisition: the

case for Pennsylvania German. Linguistics 213.29–50.

Dixon, R.M.W 1991. A New Approach to English Grammar, on Semantic

Principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Ebert, R.P. 1978. Historische Syntax des Deutschen. Stuttgart: J.B. Metzlerische

Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Emonds, Joseph E. 1976. A transformational approach to English syntax. Root,

structure-preserving and local transformations. New York: Academic Press.

Enninger, Werner 1985. Amish By-Names. Names. 33.243-258.

Falk, Yehuda 2001. Infinitival to. Ms, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Available at http://pluto.mscc.huji.ac.il/~msyfalk/Infinitival.pdf

Fischer, Olga 1995. The distinction between to and bare infinitival complements

in late Middle English. Diachronica 12.1–30.

Fretz, J.W. 1989. The Waterloo Mennonites: A Community in Paradox.

Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press.

Frey, J. William 1981 [1942] (2nd ed). A Simple grammar of Pennsylvania

German. Lancaster, Pa.:Brookshire Publications.

65

Giusti, Giuliana 1991. Zu-infinitivals and sentential structure in German. Rivista

di Linguistica 3.211–234.

Givón, Talmy 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: an

archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7.394–415.

Goscinny, R. & A. Uderzo 1990. Dem Asterix séng Odysee. Luxembourg:

Imprimerie St Paul.

Haag, Earl C. 1982. A Pennsylvania German reader and grammar. University

Park.Pa.: The Pennsyvlania State University Press.

Harris, Alice C. & Campbell, Lyle 1995. Historical syntax in cross-linguistic

perspective. Cambridge: CUP.

Haspelmath, Martin 1989. From purposive to infinitive — a universal path of

grammaticization. Folia Linguistica Historica X/1–2.287–310.

Haspelmath, Martin 1999. Why is grammaticalisation irreversible? Linguistics

37.1043–1068.

Henn, Beate 1978. Mundartinterferenzen am Beispiel des Nordwestpfälzischen.

Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.

Henn, Beate 1980. Pfälzisch. Düsseldorf: Pädagogischer Verlag Schwann.

Henry, Alison 1992. Infinitives in a for-to dialect. Natural Language and

Linguistic Theory 10.279–301.

Henry, Alison 1995. Belfast English and Standard English. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Hoffmann, Jean-Paul 1996. Lëtzebuergesh and its competitors: language contact

in Luxembourg today. Newman (ed.), 97–108.

Horne, A.R. 1905 [1875]. Pennsylvania German manual.(3d edition). Allentown,

PA: T.K Horne Publishers.

Hornstein, Norbert 1999. Movement and control. Linguistic Inquiry . 30.69–96.

66

Huffines, Marion Lois 1990. Contact phenomena in language maintenance and

shift: the Pennsylvania German infinitive construction. American Journal of

Germanic Linguistics and Literatures 2.95–108.

Jespersen, Otto 1909. A modern English grammar on historical principles.

Heidelberg : C. Winter.

Jespersen, Otto 1922. Language : its nature, development and origin. London : G.

Allen & Unwin.

Karch, Dieter & Wolfgang W. Moelleken 1977. Siedlungspfälzisch in Kreis

Waterloo, Ontario, Kanada. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.

Kiss, Tibor 1994. Bemerkungen zum Vorkommen des 2. Status. Linguistische

Berichte 154.461–484.

Koster, Jan & Robert May 1982. On the constituency of infinitives. Language

58.116–143.

Lehmann, Christian 1995 [1982]. Thoughts on grammaticalization. München:

Lincom Europa.

Lockwood, W.B. 1968. Historical German syntax. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Los, Bettelou 1998. The rise of the to-infinitive as verb complement. English

Los, Bettelou 2000. Infinitival complementation in Old and Middle English. Vrije

Universiteit, Amsterdam: PhD thesis.

Louden, Mark L 1988. Bilingualism and syntactic change in Pennsylvania

German. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University dissertation.

Louden, Mark L. 1992 Old Order Amish Verbal Behaviour as a Reflection of

Cultural Convergence. Burridge & Enninger (eds), 264-279.

Louden, Mark L 1997. Linguistic structure and sociolinguistic identity in

Pennsylvania German society. Languages and lives: essays in honour of

Werner Enninger, ed. by James R. Dow & Michele Wolff, 79-92. New

York: Peter Lang.

67

Luxemburger Wörterbuch Vol 1–5 (I 1950–54, II 1955–62, III 1965–70, IV

1971–75, V 1977). Luxembourg: P. Linden Hofbuchdrucker.

Manzini, & Roussou 2000. A Minimalist theory of A-movement and control.

Lingua 110.409–447.

Martin, Roger 2001. Null Case and the distribution of PRO. Linguistic Inquiry

32.141–166.

Miller, Gary D. 2002. Nonfinite structures in theory and change. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Newmeyer, Frits J. 2001. Deconstructing grammaticalization. Language Sciences

23.187–229.

Newman, Gerald. (ed.) 1996. Language and communication at the crossroads of

Europe. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Newman, Gerald 1996. German, French, Lëtzebuergesch. Newman (ed.), 39–65.

Pollard, Carl & Ivan Sag 1995. Head-driven Phrase Structure Grammar.

Stanford, Ca: CSLI Publications.

Poutsma, Hendrik 1923. The infinitive, the gerund and the participles of the

English verb. Groningen: P. Noordhoff.

Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1981. The category status of to in English. The University

of Washington Working Papers in Linguistics 6.55–72.

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik 1985. A

comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.

Raith, J. 1992. Dialect mixing and / or convergence: Pennsylvania German?

Burridge & Enninger (eds.), 152-181.

Reed, Carroll E. 1948. The adaptation of English to Pennsylvania German

morphology. American Speech 23.239–244.

Rizzi, Luigi 1997. The fine structure of the left periphery. Elements of grammar:

handbook in generative syntax, ed. by Liliane Haegeman, 281-337.

Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer

68

Roberts, Ian & Anna Roussou. 1999. A formal approach to

“grammaticalization”. Linguistics 37.1011–1041.

Russ, Charles V. J. 1996. Lëtzebuergesch: a linguistic description. Newman (ed),

67–95.

Sag, Ivan A. & Thomas Wasow 1999. Syntactic theory: a formal introduction.

Stanford. Ca: CSLI Publications.

Sauder, Ben 1955. Der nachbar an de schtroas. St. Jacobs: Pennsylvania German

Folklore Society of Ontario.

Tabor, Whitney & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and

grammaticalization. The limits of grammaticalization, ed. by Anna Giacolone

Ramat & Paul J. Hopper, 229-72. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Tappe, H.T. 1984. On infinitival clauses without COMP. Sentential

complementation, ed. by W. de Geest & Y. Putseys (eds), 227–237.

Dordrecht: Foris.

Teleman, Ulf, Staffan Hellberg & Erik Andersson 1999. Svenska Akademiens

grammatik. Stockholm: Svenska Akademien / Norstedts Ordböcker.

Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Bernd Heine (eds.) 1991. Approaches to

grammaticalization. Vols 1&2. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Trudgill, Peter 1995 Grammaticalisation and social structure: non-standard

conjunction-formation in East Anglian English. Grammar and meaning:

essays in honor of Sir John Lyons, ed. by Frank Palmer, 136-147.

Cambridge: CUP.

van Ness, Silke 1994. Pennsylvania German. In The Germanic languages, ed. by

Ekkehard König & Johan van der Auwer, 420-438. London: Routledge.

van Riemsdijk, Henk 1984. On pied-piped infinitives in German relative clauses.

Studies in German grammar, ed. by J. Toman, 165–192. Dordrecht: Foris.

Visser, F. Th. 1963-73. An Historical Syntax of the English Language. 3

volumes. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

69

Weber, Albert & Dieth, Eugen 1964. Zürichdeutsche grammatik; ein wegweiser

zur guten mundart 2nd ed. Zürich: Schweizer Spiegel Verlag.

Wierzbicka, Anna 1988. The Semantics of Grammar. Amersterdam: John

Benjamins.

Wilder, Chris 1988. On the German infinitival marker zu and the analysis of

raising constructions. Lingua 76.115–175.

70

Footnotes

* This paper has depended on the kindness and generous support of so many members of the

Mennonite community in Waterloo County. To all these people, we owe a special debt of

gratitude for their continued friendship and their time and patience in answering our constant

questions. We have particularly depended on the generosity of Nancy Martin and Melvin K

and Nora Martin and their families. Thanks are due also to Martin Durrell, Winifred Davies,

Anna Hannesdottir, Kerstin Jaktén, Henk van Riemsdijk, Cecile Somers and Ragnhild

Svellingen for help with data from various Germanic languages and non-standard varieties and

to Sue Spence for her work on transcribing the Pennsylvania German data. KEB is also

grateful for the financial support of the Economics and Social Science Research Council (grant

no R000 23 7820) and also to the British Academy who provided the funding which made it

possible for us to start this joint project. Finally, KEB also wishes to thank the Arts and

Humanities Research Board who provided funding for a matching leave and the Department of

Swedish Language at Gothenburg University which provided a peaceful home during this

research leave.

1 In discussing these constructions, we will sometimes use fer...zu as a cover term for the

Germanic ones, even though the pronunciation and spelling varies greatly and even though the

zu element may sometimes be missing. Similarly, we will use for..to to refer more generally to

the construction type. This means that the terminology is in principle ambiguous between any

purposive construction with für/fer (as opposed to um) and an actual fer...zu construction (as

opposed to a fer construction, for instance), but we hope that it is always clear which meaning is

intended.

2 In fact, the example which Huffines (1990:103) provides to show that the construction is

obsolete in English sounds old-fashioned exactly because it lacks a subject: I’m going to

Louisiana for to see my Suziana.

71

3 In all the Scandinavian languages which have a for to construction, there are alternative ways of

expressing purpose; for instance Swedish så att (and cognates in Norwegian and Danish) and

Faroese til (tess) at.

4 In all glossed examples, we provide glossing representing functional features like tense, case or

number only when this is the focus of the discussion, hence there is a feature FIN in the gloss

for skulle and skall here and INF occurs in the gloss for kunna in (c), but no corresponding INF

on for instance bli in (a).

5 Interestingly, according to Henn (1978:52), this construction is rarely used with a negation.

6 As Martin Durrell (pc) has pointed out to us, Transylvanian Saxon dialects, Wolgadeutsche and

other dispersed groups originate in roughly this area and it is not inconceivable that these

dialects also use fer...zu, but clear information is thin on the ground.

7 In some literature in English, the language is referred to by its name in the language itself;

Lëtzebuergesch, but we have chosen to use the English name here. We are grateful to Cecile

Somers for her help with the Luxemburgish examples. If there are errors in the data or the

glossing they are ours.

8 The finite construction is mentioned by Russ (1996), Bruch (1973) and Christophory (1974),

whereas the non-finite construction is not mentioned in Russ’ brief description.

9 LW refers to Luxemburger Wörterbuch.

10 We are grateful to Henk van Riemsdijk for pointing us to the reference for Swiss German.

11 USPG is spoken in many states of the United States (according to the Ethnologue

(www.ethnologue.com) USPG is spoken in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas,

Oklahoma, Virginia, West Virginia, and Florida) and it is likely that differences exist between

these varieties of PG, so that it is a simplification to talk about USPG (see the discussion of

Costello’s (1978) attempt at defining variation in section 5.2). However, the early descriptions

often give no indication as to the area on which it is based, though one can assume that this is

most likely to mean that it is Pennsylvania. Also in the few more recent descriptions which exist

72

of this phenomenon, there is no evidence of differences in the use of the purposive. Hence we

will use the description USPG in this paper, but we will use it with caution.

12 We have a copy of the third edition of this work, which was published in 1905. The first edition

was published in 1875 and the second edition in 1895. The preface to the second edition

indicates that no essential changes have been made and the preface to the third edition only

refers to ‘many additional illustrative features’ (Horne 1905:6).

13 Note, PG spelling is not standardized and there is wild variation. We have retained the original

spelling in all examples throughout this paper. In our examples we adopt a system roughly

based on that of Standard German (and found, for example, in books like Buffington & Barba

1965).

14 The zu which follows the first instance of fer is not part of the fer...zu construction, but forms

part of a PP zu eme nochbar blatz.

15 A comment on terminology is in order here. In a sentence like the following; I want to leave,

there is no overt subject in the lower, non-finite, clause. There are many different analyses of

this type of phenomena and with them much different terminology. The construction as such is

standardly referred to as a control construction, but terminology relating to the lower subject

position varies greatly. We can say that the clause is subjectless since it lacks an overt subject,

but in transformational analyses, there is, however, assumed to be a non-overt subject there,

namely an unpronounced pronoun PRO (though see recent proposals by Hornstein (1999)

that it may be a different kind of zero element ). In non-transformational analyses, like those

proposed with Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan 2001) or Head-driven Phrase Structure

Grammar (Pollard & Sag 1995), the syntactic structure is indeed assumed to be subjectless,

though at a different level, functional structure or argument structure, there is a subject. Even

though our sympathies are with the latter type of approach, we shall use terms such as

‘subjectless’ and ‘PRO subject’ in the discussion of other analyses and the data since these

terms are widely known and used.

73

In constructions with verbs like believe, the semantic subject of the infinitival clause has

some object properties and could hence be considered the syntactic object of the matrix verb.

This type of construction is known by a number of different names which mirror the

development of the analyses in transformational grammar: Subject-to-Object Raising

construction (SOR), S-bar deletion or Exceptional Case Marking (ECM). We will mainly use

the traditional term SOR here, but with this term, we do not mean to make any statement about

theoretical analysis.

Similarly, there are constructions with verbs like seem in which the semantic subject of the

lower verb functions as the syntactic subject of the matrix verb, these we will refer to as Subject-

to-Subject Raising (SSR) verbs, again without implying a movement based analysis.

16 Of course in a more recent version of transformational grammar, the Minimalist Program, it is a

question of Case checking, rather than Case assignment.

17 There are recent analyses which propose that PRO is assigned a Case, namely ‘null Case’

(Chomsky & Lasnik 1993), in fact this idea has been taken further by Martin (2001) who

assumes that even some overt noun phrases can be assigned null Case. The notion of null Case

has, however, been criticised by for instance Hornstein (1999), Manzini & Roussou (2000) and

Miller (2002), and in our opinion rightly so.

18 It is actually remarkable how little data from Ozark appears to be available, given the role it

plays in the debate. Later discussions, like Chomsky (1981) and Koster & May (1982) refer

only to Chomsky & Lasnik (1977) for data, as does Carroll (1983) in her explicit comparison

of OVE and Ozark. Still, Chomsky & Lasnik give fewer than ten example sentences from

Ozark (1977:454, 500-1).

19 The quote comes from the home page of the Linguistic Survey of the Ottawa Valley, a project at

Carleton University, Ottawa: http://www.carleton.ca/slals/research/ling_surv_ott_valley.html.

20 The text on the project home page claims that of the varieties that can be said to constitute

Ottawa Valley English, several “were influenced by languages other than English spoken by

early settlers: one [was] influenced by North-Eastern varieties of German as it was spoken in

74

the nineteenth century” (http://www.carleton.ca/slals/research/ling_surv_ott_valley.html). It is

then not even clear that these varities would have had a fer...zu construction.

21 Carroll (1983:424-5) also gives examples of purposives and show that they can occur with for.

All examples of purposives given lack a subject and no indication is given of whether or not the

for is optional.

22 In actual fact, in both cases, there is a preposition for which takes an NP complement which

expands as a clause (S’); in the case of subjectless infinitivals, the complementiser slot is

empty, but the S’ boundary stops for from governing the subject position. Where there is a

subject in the infinitival, there is a preposition for and a complementiser for, but only the latter

of these appears in surface structure. The structures are as given in (i) and (ii):

(i) [want [ for [ [ ]COMP [PRO to leave]S ]S’ ]PP ]VP

(ii) [want [ for [ [ for ]COMP [you to leave]S ]S’ ]PP ]VP

23 The overt NP is really the subject of the non-finite clause and does not belong in the higher

clause, as indicated by the fact that subject pronoun there can occur in this position: I want

there for to be some peace and quiet sometime (Henry 1992:285).

24 As can be plausibly argued for older forms of English (e.g. Fischer 1995, Miller 2002:191 and

references there).

25 The sentence comes from page 1 of the Luxemburgish translation of R. Goscinny & A.

Uderzo’s L'Odyssée d'Astérix.

26 Costello does recognise, following Buffington and Barba (1965), that StdPG has a purposive

construction with fer(...zu), but he explicitly says that StdPG does not have a fer

complementiser.

27 There is a third group of Plain Mennonites which is separate from the other two, namely, the so-

called Dave Martins. We have not included them here for two reasons; firstly, their variety of

PG differs from that of the Old Orders and the Markham Mennonites. Secondly, the group is

isolationist and sets itself apart from other Mennonites as well as from strangers. They are

75

therefore difficult to approach and our recordings with members of this group are too limited to

form the basis for a proper comparison.

28 This whereas they will say that they can distinguish the PG spoken by Dave Martins.

29 Note that there is evidence here of the uncertainty about how to write WCPG, in (29a) we have

die aerwet and in (29b), we find die Erwat. Also in (29b), there is main clause V2 word order

here even though the clause is introduced by a subordinator.

30 In one of these interviews there is a surprise appearance of an um...zu purposive clause (um sel

zu finne ‘in order to find it’), suggesting that the speakers might well have been

accommodating to the German interviewers in these recordings.

31 This verb originally meant ‘to resemble/be like’; the meaning extension is clearly influenced by

the similarity in English of be like and like. It can now only mean ‘to like, enjoy’.

32 See Miller (2002: Ch2) for a discussion of infinitives and -ing forms in the history of English.

As he points out, bare infinitivals in Old English tended to have a progressive aspectual

meaning.

33 See Wierzbicka (1988:113-18) on the “other-orientation” of for to in English. Wierbicka

(1988:120) points out that the special meaning of for in English is also apparent when you

compare the complements of non-confident verbs like ask for and long for with confident verbs

like demand and order that never allow for (*demand for / order for). Again the English

patterns coincide with the PG patterns. Compare the patterns in the first column with the second

column below. The semantic nature of the main verbs here determines the complement — each

of the versions with fer clearly expresses less confidence in the outcome:

Sie will ebbes ‘She wants something’ / Sie wott fer ebbes ‘She wishes for something’

Sie ekspekt en brief ‘She expects a letter’ / Sie hofft fer en brief ‘She hopes for a letter’

Sie verwart en brief ‘She expects a letter’/ Sie wart (guckt) fer en brief ‘She waits for a letter’

Sie foddert sel ‘She demands that’ / Sie froogt fer sel ‘She asks for that’

Sie bestellt sel ‘She orders that’ / Sie beddelt fer sel ‘She begs for that’

34 The zu here is a preposition which introduces the PP zu leit.

76

35 The constituency of for...to constructions in English is not absolutely clear. In recent

transformational accounts, for is assumed to be a complementiser, heading its clause, but still

able to assign Case to the subject of the subject of that clause (cf. Koster & May 1982).

However, there are also arguments for assuming that for still forms a syntactic unit with the

following noun phrase, this line of argument goes back to Emonds (1976:191–200).

36 Horne’s 1875 manual also has a number of examples showing a surprising absence of any

infinitive marking.

Er was ready ahead geh mit der bisness.

he was ready ahead go with the business

‘He was ready to go ahead with the business’ (Horne 1910/1875:202)

37 We use the term descriptively here, and ignore the whole issue of whether or not

grammaticalisation is an independent phenomenon (but see papers like Haspelmath 1999 as

opposed to Newmeyer 2001 and others in Language Sciences 23).

38 Recent developments within this framework have seen extensive ‘splitting’ of both C (Rizzi

1997) and I (Cinque 1999). We maintain the C and I view here both for ease of exposition and

because we have serious reservations about the current proliferation of functional heads.

39 Many versions of HPSG still assume that the clause is a VP, in particular a saturated VP, and

that complementisers belong to a type called MARKER, which has some properties associated

with heads, but which is actually not the syntactic head of the clause (Pollard and Sag

1994:44–46). Sag & Wasow (1999) recognise CP, but do not use IP.

40 For Standard German, most analyses assume that zu is either part of I or V (Bech 1983,

Beukema & den Dikken 1989, Giusti 1991 and Kiss 1994), the one dissenting voice is Wilder

(1988), but to our mind, his arguments are weak. Um is assumed to be a complementiser by

some (van Riemsdijk 1984), whereas others have argued that is a preposition (Tappe 1984;

Koster & May 1982; Giusti 1991).

41 There are many reasons to assume that to is not in C and this has been the prevalent opinion in

the literature (e.g. Pullum 1981; Beukema & den Dikken 1989), however, recently some

77

linguists have argued that it is a C element (Sag & Wasow 1999, Falk 2001). We do not find

the arguments used to support the C analysis convincing.

42 Both examples are from the PAROLE corpus which is part of Språkbanken at the University of

Gothenburg (http://spraakbanken.gu.se/lb/parole/). In both cases the example would be

grammatical also without att.

43 This speaker is 10 years old and the use of seemt instead of scheint is typical of the more

extensive use of words borrowed from English that we find in younger speakers.

44 How one represents the I and the IP projection in (76b) depends on ones theoretical

assumptions, the crucial point here is that it does not contain any overt material.

45 In the analyses current in 1977, both elements were assumed to be in C, hence the name.

However, now wh elements are assumed to be phrasal and hence found in the specifier rather

than the head position in the tree.